Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

OK...Thats the headline. and it starts by saying A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

But further down it says Petraeus spokesman Col. Eric Gunhus pushed back on the claim Friday, telling Fox News it's too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he'll take under consideration during his assessment after he's confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.

SO My question is do you think that the rules SHOULD be loosened?

 
momof030404

Asked by momof030404 at 1:03 PM on Jun. 25, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 23 (16,925 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (20)
  • From what I understand, the rules are being screwed up by the chain of command somewhere between the general and the troops. In the RS article about McChrystal it went into that - saying he had set up rules, and it was like a game of telephone. By the time they got passed down to the guys who had to live by them they were 10 times stricter and more impossible to follow than the actual orders he'd issued. Would Patraeus' orders be any different?
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:49 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • Alls fair in love and war! :o)


    Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:13 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • This is too annoying for words.

    mancosmomma

    Answer by mancosmomma at 1:09 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • Whatever's necessary
    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 1:08 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • I am really hoping he says, send ALL troops home, Special Ops the group they are hunting and leave Afghanistan and Iraq for GOOD

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 1:11 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • Mancos, you rock!!  LOL :o)


    rock n roll

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:23 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • NP most likely that will be the same case!


    The issue with the current ROE's in Afghanistan is the same issue we had with them in Iraq. My husband's squad chased a guy that shot and injured a guy from 3rd squad. Chased him for 3 blocks before the guy dropped his rifle. After he dropped that rifle the ROE's state he is no longer an enemy combatant so they had to let him go. Even though they knew he was trying to kill them, and knew he would probably be trying to kill them later that same day, and so on. It's ridiculous!

    BlueCollarMama

    Answer by BlueCollarMama at 5:23 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • momof030404

    Comment by momof030404 (original poster) at 1:05 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • Manco, your box is empty...
    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 1:12 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

  • I am really hoping he says, send ALL troops home, Special Ops the group they are hunting and leave Afghanistan and Iraq for GOOD

    ***
    And WHEN he doesn't, will you still be praising "Bush's guy?!" :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:15 PM on Jun. 25, 2010

close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN