Rules of Engagement-are we unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way

[Andy A]

There is something that has been bothering me for some time now. The reason it does so goes way back to my first tour in VietNam when I operated under "Rules of Engagement". I was not allowed to shoot at someone or thing unless I was shot at first. In my mind, that put me, and others conducting our mission, at a distinct disadvantage.
The same type rules of engagement are now in place in Afganistan. Our soldiers must see a weapon before they can return fire.
I understand that collateral damage...the killing of civilians must be held to an absolute minimum. I also understant we cannot win any conflict fighting it on terms that favor our enemy.
Some of our fighters are now on or close to entering their 6th tour in the Middle East. It is, in my opinion, unconcionable to expect them to fight with one hand tied behind their back.
Either we should allow them to do what is necessary to do their job or we should get out post haste. Our trying to "nation build" in Afganistan is not worth one American life considering what we know regarding the area.
Unfortunately, there is nothing you or I can do about the Rules of Engagement. It is a military matter. I do have deep seated feelings regarding them as I was hamstrung by them as well. How do you feel about them?
One thing more. If we are going to continue to put our service men and women in harm's way for as many as 6 tours, maybe we should reinstate the draft and let all eligible have a turn.

 

[sarawind]

General David Petraeus today said he?s concerned the U.S. military?s rules of engagement in Afghanistan are too restrictive and putting American forces at risk.

Petraeus: U.S. May Ease Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan - Bloomberg

It is bad enough to be fighting a war but to have this restriction must give the enemy an advantage our
wonderful countrymen and women do not deserve.

 

[Geo]

I agree with you, Andy. Seems like a no-brainer. But let's not stop there at the 5,000 foot view- let's look at things from 50,000 feet up. Tell me what the mission is? What are the objectives? What constitutes victory?

I will only support a draft if/when our leaders only authorize wars to defend America from tangible enemies. Wars against abstract concepts like terror don't count.

 

[idlewind]

I agree with you, Andy. Seems like a no-brainer. But let's not stop there at the 5,000 foot view- let's look at things from 50,000 feet up. Tell me what the mission is? What are the objectives? What constitutes victory?

I will only support a draft if/when our leaders only authorize wars to defend America from tangible enemies. Wars against abstract concepts like terror don't count.

You are 100% on the mark but you forgot one thing: No American troops for nation building. We use our blood and treasure to serve our national interests and nothing more.

 

[Here4Good]

I guess the left-handed blessing of people hating Obama so much is that they are FINALLY willing to see that it is possible to support the troops, and oppose the war.

It's also nice to do so and not be accused of "emboldening the terrorists".

 

[futurebeachbum]

General David Petraeus today said he?s concerned the U.S. military?s rules of engagement in Afghanistan are too restrictive and putting American forces at risk.

Petraeus: U.S. May Ease Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan - Bloomberg

It is bad enough to be fighting a war but to have this restriction must give the enemy an advantage our
wonderful countrymen and women do not deserve.

Don't get your hopes up. More recent articles like "Rules Of Engagement To Be "Clarified," Not Changed" indicate little to no change to the ROE.

Despite the complaints of some troops in Afghanistan that warfighting rules restrict their ability to defend themselves, the new commanding U.S. general will not be changing the Rules of Engagement, but officials say he will soon clarify actions soldiers may take to clear up confusion and alleviate frustration in the field.

For those ROE to work, we need significantly more feet-on-the-ground in Afghanistan. If McCrystal had gotten the troops he asked for and felt that he had a chance to win, he wouldn't have pulled the Rolling Stone stunt that he did.

 

[Em]

Let's see, we lost about 5,000 precious lives on Sept 11, 2001. Then we went to war loosing even more than that, in hopes of seeking justice for the 5,000. Somewhere that math doesn't add up in my mind.

We Americans learn much from history, don't we? Vietnam -- what a success! Afghanistan will be even worse, in my opinion. We armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and once they fought off the Russians, they turned our guns on us. (reminds me of the French Indian War) Now, we are fighting them again, while trying to rebuild their country, and our own country suffers economically. America is so busy telling other people how to be, that we are not being who we need to be.

Why? Why are we fighting Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it money? Is it oil? I'm not sure, but I do know that the government contractors who contribute heavily to political campaigns, reap HUGE rewards to rebuild the places we destroy. That makes great sense, doesn't it? If we are going to go into debt at this extreme, it sure would be great if we spent it on our own infrastructure. Obama had those campaign promises pulling out all troops. He failed, though I never believe anything I hear in a campaign.

I, too, don't like that our troops fight with hands tied. At the same time, I don't want them needlessly killing bystanding civilians. War isn't pretty. Maybe what we need instead of a draft is to require every politician to have their sons and daughters join the military. I have a vivid memory of some graffitti that hit me hard many years ago, "War is good business. Invest your son." If our politicians family was on the line, maybe the money wouldn't look so inviting.

Andy, thanks for serving for our country!

 

[Rita]

.
great post Murray


.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Let's see, we lost about 5,000 precious lives on Sept 11, 2001. Then we went to war loosing even more than that, in hopes of seeking justice for the 5,000. Somewhere that math doesn't add up in my mind.

We Americans learn much from history, don't we? Vietnam -- what a success! Afghanistan will be even worse, in my opinion. We armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and once they fought off the Russians, they turned our guns on us. (reminds me of the French Indian War) Now, we are fighting them again, while trying to rebuild their country, and our own country suffers economically. America is so busy telling other people how to be, that we are not being who we need to be.

Why? Why are we fighting Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it money? Is it oil? I'm not sure, but I do know that the government contractors who contribute heavily to political campaigns, reap HUGE rewards to rebuild the places we destroy. That makes great sense, doesn't it? If we are going to go into debt at this extreme, it sure would be great if we spent it on our own infrastructure. Obama had those campaign promises pulling out all troops. He failed, though I never believe anything I hear in a campaign.

I, too, don't like that our troops fight with hands tied. At the same time, I don't want them needlessly killing bystanding civilians. War isn't pretty. Maybe what we need instead of a draft is to require every politician to have their sons and daughters join the military. I have a vivid memory of some graffitti that hit me hard many years ago, "War is good business. Invest your son." If our politicians family was on the line, maybe the money wouldn't look so inviting.

Andy, thanks for serving for our country!

I think that we had a justifiable reason to go into Afghanistan and hit them pretty hard. If we had focused on the job and had a narrowly defined mission we could have done it and left.

Instead, we made the disastrous decision to let Afghanistan simmer and to go into Iraq. That made its a double tragedy. I think our invasion of Iraq is the most shameful international action our country has ever undertaken.

In the meantime Afghanistan has turned into a colossal mess that can't really be easily fixed. We ought to just declare victory, arm the warlords and leave.

 

[Lake View Too]

The decision to invade Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. We lost all chance of having "sucess" in Afghanistan because of the vast amount of resources that went into that war. Murray opened a more obvious reason why we are in two never-ending wars: money. Eisenhower (a war hero) warned this country about the threat of the military-industrial complex about a half a century ago. I saw a chart a few days ago and it said the US produces 43% of the world's arms. The next closest producer was 8%. Enough said.