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

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

SOLDIERS: OBAMA'S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT COSTING U.S. LIVES IN AFGHANISTAN

Posted by on May. 2, 2013 at 4:29 AM
  • 96 Replies
1 mom liked this

article photo

The hearse delivering the body of Marine Hunter Hogan from the airport Friday morning passes through an avenue of flags and a crowd of people in the heart of downtown York. More than 150 Patriot Guard riders provided escorts for the Marine's body and his family.


 28 Oct 2012 


I find it infinitely interesting that the media so often fail to ask so many of the really important questions. For example, according to icasualties, as of the 13th of October, 2012, 1,567 of the 2,136 US troops killed in Afghanistan have died since Obama became president of the United States. That is, 73% of all troops fatalities there happened in the 45 months since Obama took office, compared to 8 years under Bush. The number of wounded under Obama has increased almost 5 times over the number of wounded under Bush.

Why have so many more died under Obama in less than four years, than under eight years of George W. Bush’s watch?

The answer is easy. Under Obama, the Rules of Engagement (ROE) have been progressively tightened since 2009, limiting more and more the circumstances under which a US serviceman can use deadly force. Worst of all, the ROE has become so complicated that soldiers are afraid to fire for fear they will face a court martial. The aim of the changing ROE is theoretically benign: every attempt is being made to guard against civilian casualties. But US soldiers are facing people who are indistinguishable from civilians in almost every way, until they start shooting or set off a bomb. How do they know if someone involved in suspicious activities is a civilian or an insurgent?

You can see the effect of the changed ROE on US military deaths as follows:

2001 12
2002 49
2003 48
2004 52
2005 99
2006 98
2007 117
2008 155
2009 317
2010 499
2011 418
2012 272

Under Bush, the casualties were relatively low. Indeed, as Peter Szoldra, an ex-Marine commented, “When I deployed to Afghanistan as an infantry squad leader in 2004, I had the utmost confidence in my superiors, our mission to restore order to Afghanistan, and to help the Afghan people. At the time of my deployment, we had clear rules of engagement (ROE): if you ever feel that your life is threatened, you can respond with force, to include deadly force.”

He adds: “Beyond this, we also patrolled our area of operations with the knowledge that if we ever radioed “troops in contact,” our requests for air or artillery support would be approved.”

All this has changed. Now, he says:

“Instead of being afraid of the might of U.S. firepower, enemy fighters use our Rules of Engagement and restrictions on air support against us. When faced with a split-second decision of whether to shoot, soldiers many times must hesitate—or be investigated. Or, as in the case of the 2009 Battle of Ganjgal, excessive restrictions on air and artillery assets unfortunately meant excessive American deaths.

We are willing to restrict ourselves to the point of helplessness to avoid even a possibility of civilian casualties,” said one military officer who I’ll refer to as Evan, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I have personally watched the same man arm and disarm 12 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) over a week, with no strikes allowed due to collateral concerns.”

Simply put, Obama would rather have our soldiers die than deal with the political fall-out from accidental civilian deaths. To see the ridiculous constraints our soldiers labor under, here’s a telling quote from another article:

“On many nights, the Marines watched through their night-vision goggles as shadowy figures dug holes in the ground, and on several occasions they opened fire. At some point, the order came down: Stop shooting at night unless you can positively identify an insurgent.

“We knew what that person was doing … burying an IED for sure,” said Wimer, who is now out of the Marines and enrolled in college. “But the command would say, ‘You can’t be positive. They might be a farmer.’ Ridiculous.”

Yes, ridiculous. But the result is tragedy. 

by on May. 2, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
tnmomofive
by Silver Member on May. 2, 2013 at 5:34 AM
2 moms liked this

Sad.Farmers? Seriously? :eye roll:

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on May. 2, 2013 at 6:39 AM
3 moms liked this

 Holy fucking WOW!!!

Way to go Barry...he's such a pompous ass, he doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone other than himself. These men and women fight for our freedoms..(that includes YOU Barry) with their lives daily..and as commander in chief of our armed forces you don't have the fucking decency to give them clear ROE?? How I wish that was impeachable.

But then Barry needs to protect his radical muslim friends.

 

 

Yo Barry...are we moving forward yet?

 

 

 smiley: Yah - keystrokes: bitch

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on May. 2, 2013 at 6:44 AM
1 mom liked this
The President increased soldiers on Afghanistan - something Bush should have done but he fabricate evidence to invade a country that didnt attack us

In which over 4000 soldiers died...
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on May. 2, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Who's rules of engagement?

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 rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
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.
The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.
The rules, put in place by outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are classified but generally aim to limit civilian casualties by prohibiting troops from firing unless they're shot at -- or from launching bomb or artillery attacks when civilians are near the target.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/#ixzz2S8Cev2aZ
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM
2 moms liked this

Did you even read this article?

Yes, O followed GWB's example, by creating a mini-surge in Afghanistan -  which should have made it safer for soldiers, fewer deaths. But the opposite happened: 600% more US casualties have occurred in 45 months under Obama, than 8 YEARS under Bush. What the hell?

Are you saying there is nothing to the damn ROEs? That these military troops and leadership are lying?

Go tell that to the family members of the 1,567 soldiers killed IN OBAMA'S 1ST TERM.


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The President increased soldiers on Afghanistan - something Bush should have done but he fabricate evidence to invade a country that didnt attack us

In which over 4000 soldiers died...



SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM
2 moms liked this

Good intentions are not the same thing as actual consequences and reality. The generals did what they were ordered to do by the President-in-Chief.

So, based on what you know,  why, immediately after the new ROEs, do you think 600% more soldiers died and 500% more were injured in 45 months than 8 years? 

It is a sad world when soldiers on the battlefield have huge questions as to whether they are allowed to protect themselves, or whether they should not, and risk their lives and those of their fellow soldiers, out of worry they will get get court martialed, sued, demoted, dishonorably discharged, etc. What a horrible position to be in. In one case within the past 4 years, the soldiers felt they were between a rock and a hard place, so they essentially let themselves be ambushed and killed, when they could have avoided it - but it would have not exactly been according to the ROE, and they could have been court martialed. Only one soldier survived this incident. We have the best fighting force in the world, and we won't even let them defend themselves.

But please, tell me why you and O think this is a good thing. I'm dying to know (pun unintended).

You probably should read the article first.


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Who's rules of engagement?

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 rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
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.
The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.
The rules, put in place by outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are classified but generally aim to limit civilian casualties by prohibiting troops from firing unless they're shot at -- or from launching bomb or artillery attacks when civilians are near the target.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/#ixzz2S8Cev2aZ



LuvmyAiden
by on May. 2, 2013 at 9:57 AM
2 moms liked this

EVERYONE should read Marcus Luttrell's book Lone Survivor. It gives an amazingly intimate and heart wrenching view of how the ROEs are killing our best and brightest and ultimately losing the war. At one point he says they weren't afraid of the enemy or death but they were afraid of the American media crucifying them as murderers and dishonoring their families and brothers in arms if they did what was neccassary to keep them alive. Until I started reading the books I didn't really know how bad it was but after several I am adamantly against ROEs that get our guys killed needlessly. This is something way more people should be paying attention to.

rccmom
by Gold Member on May. 2, 2013 at 11:59 AM

This article is useless unless it takes into account the lives lost in Iraq and what the rules were there at the time during Bush"s Presidency, and particularly during the surge. Even then, unless you have specific on what ROEs have been in place when, where, and for what reason, it is not very useful.

I have 2 nephews over there. One was just almost blown up at a check point. Thank God the truck loaded with explosives was 3rd in line when it blew, so he was not killed. I would, as a Vet myself, and part of a family of vets, very much appreciate it if people would stop playing political football with the military death toll. If you actually care about this, get our troops back home.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM
1 mom liked this

Don't be silly. This article is about Afghanistan - which Obama proclaimed is a "just war."

Are you saying those numbers are normal? 500% more deaths and 600% more injuries in 3 YEARS 9 MONTHS under Obama  - compared to EIGHT YEARS under GWB? 

Do the math, listen to the testimony of retired military from Afghanistan and parents of dead soldiers, who all say specifically the Rules of Engagement are getting soldiers killed at an astronomical rate. These should not increase by 500%, good Lord. And tell me how in God's name you - obviously a military expert far more experienced than soldiers on the battlefield - can insist that Obama's ROE are NOT killing and wounding a hugely increased number of soldiers? And that soldiers not being able to defend themselves, seeing their friends get killed, sharply disagreeing with their commanding officers about this, and speaking up about this when they get out of the service are lying?

You do know how to calculate percentages?

Iraq casualties decreased 70% in only one year under GWB due to the surge, and has been in a drawdown, so you can't compare the two - they are apples and oranges. 

Quoting rccmom:

This article is useless unless it takes into account the lives lost in Iraq and what the rules were there at the time during Bush"s Presidency, and particularly during the surge. Even then, unless you have specific on what ROEs have been in place when, where, and for what reason, it is not very useful.

I have 2 nephews over there. One was just almost blown up at a check point. Thank God the truck loaded with explosives was 3rd in line when it blew, so he was not killed. I would, as a Vet myself, and part of a family of vets, very much appreciate it if people would stop playing political football with the military death toll. If you actually care about this, get our troops back home.



rccmom
by Gold Member on May. 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM


No, I am making no false claims, and Obama is not perfect. We don't need to be in Afghanistan, and we certainly did not need to begin Iraq. We could do what we needed to do with UAVs, and strike teams. There is no need for boots on the ground. Boots on the ground get killed. But if we use drones, people whine about collateral damages. If we use strike teams, people whine about collateral damage.  With boots on the ground, people still whine about collateral damage. Guess what, ROEs are to reduce collateral damage. So you, and I mean you in general, stop whining about collateral damages. That is why I also asked for the reasons for the ROEs. That is one reason why this article is useless because it gives only part of the story.

You want American service men and women to stop being killed, get us the f@/k out of harm's way. I am not being silly. I am pissed. The only time some people are concerned about our troops is when it is politically convenient to do so. Bush and Obama both get us killed, and dead is dead, regardless, but Bush is the one that started the wars. Do you know anything about the ROEs that existed in Vietnam or Africa, or do you think this is a new thing under Obama? 


Quoting SallyMJ:

Don't be silly. This article is about Afghanistan - which Obama proclaimed is a "just war."

Are you saying those numbers are normal? 500% more deaths and 600% more injuries in 3 YEARS 9 MONTHS under Obama  - compared to EIGHT YEARS under GWB? 

Do the math, listen to the testimony of retired military from Afghanistan and parents of dead soldiers, who all say specifically the Rules of Engagement are getting soldiers killed at an astronomical rate. These should not increase by 500%, good Lord. And tell me how in God's name you - obviously a military expert far more experienced than soldiers on the battlefield - can insist that Obama's ROE are NOT killing and wounding a hugely increased number of soldiers? And that soldiers not being able to defend themselves, seeing their friends get killed, sharply disagreeing with their commanding officers about this, and speaking up about this when they get out of the service are lying?

You do know how to calculate percentages?

Iraq casualties decreased 70% in only one year under GWB due to the surge, and has been in a drawdown, so you can't compare the two - they are apples and oranges. 

Is it possible by any stretch that your false claims and math challenges might be because Obama is your guy and allegedly is perfect??


Quoting rccmom:

This article is useless unless it takes into account the lives lost in Iraq and what the rules were there at the time during Bush"s Presidency, and particularly during the surge. Even then, unless you have specific on what ROEs have been in place when, where, and for what reason, it is not very useful.

I have 2 nephews over there. One was just almost blown up at a check point. Thank God the truck loaded with explosives was 3rd in line when it blew, so he was not killed. I would, as a Vet myself, and part of a family of vets, very much appreciate it if people would stop playing political football with the military death toll. If you actually care about this, get our troops back home.





Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)