The “Rules of Engagement” were Find ‘um, frag ‘um and forget ‘um.

Luka on August 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM

No wonder we haven’t “won” a war since 1945

Bevan on August 3, 2009 at 4:21 PM

That and our traitorous ‘news’ media.

David Petraeus, what is he up to.

tomas on August 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Probably at his summer place here in NH. He lives in one of the most beautiful towns in the state.

David Petraeus, what is he up to.

tomas on August 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Reading up on Cincinnatus

Don’t forget that Michael survives on reader donations, and hit his tip jar generously to keep the dispatches from the front lines coming to your desk.

Done.

Count to 10 on August 3, 2009 at 2:57 PM

He was suggesting we start working on getting the kids out of there. My husband is a VN vet, that suggestion is hard for me to hear. The “Peace with Honor” lost it’s luster with the fall of Saigon.

Best way to handle Afghanistan. Tell Obama that the Taliban terrorists are scheduled late-term abortions and that US soldiers are all convicted criminals.

Not just drones but overrun them with occupying forces…then you get bigger and bigger in who and where you take out.

Ground up. It helps the afghans learn and it is something they accomplished.

air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,’’ Obama said.

that used to be hannitys opening; it was dang effective too. why’d he stop it

Hawkdriver commented on 7/24 and said they aren’t fighting to win. He didn’t expand on the comment but he seemed really down.

Cindy Munford on August 3, 2009 at 2:51 PM

That is worrying. ROE is one thing, but ‘not fighting to win’ his how Vietnam got screwed up, and it had a lot more to do with the overall strategy than the tactics.

“Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,’’ Obama said.

I am so frustrated with strategy in Afghanistan.

What is the goal? Long term?

Why do we allow sharia law to be in place?

Why are fighting for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan if we are merely re-instituting a new Taliban with thinner burkas and better Satellite TVs?

It seems to me the point ought to be this:

1. Kill the Taliban. If they have human sheilds, screw it. If they hide out in villages, too bad. Kill the taliban at any chance you get. Apply the actual “Bush Doctrine” (sorry charlie gibson) on a local level. If you harbor taliban, you will die a taliban-like death.

2. Carpet bomb Wazirstan/FATA in Pakistsan. Tell the Pakistani government “you signed truces with the Taliban and said ‘you guys govern yourselves’ in about 2007; therefore, it’s basically not your territory anymore, its a de-facto Taliban govt in the NW frontier. The FATA is neither federal nor administered”.

3. Tell Afghanistan “either give women full rights of property, freedom to wear what you want, and anyone freedom to leave islam and proselytize for any religion TOMORROW or we leave the next day. we are not dying so that you can impose a new caliphate”

4. Repeat until adversaries surrender.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 3, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Still, I don’t think that there was a complete absence of rules for determining if the thing you have your gun pointed at is friend or foe, and it isn’t like they went through the cities killing everything that moved.
They might not have been as restrictive, and I don’t know if they were call “Rules Of Engagement”, but they had to have some form of them.

Count to 10 on August 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Just look at our retaking of Manila. The method of Japanese resistance, which included the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians – intentionally – left us with no option but to reduce the city, wherever Japanese could be found. At Normandy, several thousand civilians were killed. Sometimes, it just can’t be helped.

Of course, the leveling of whole cities, in bombing raids, was business as usual.

Tactically, the restrictive ROE endanger our troops every day, but strategically there is no doubt that strong ROE save the lives of even more.

Yeah, enemy lives.

Johan Klaus on August 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I don’t want to defend stupid rules of engagement, but we are talking a situation here where the ultimate goal is to have these people work together to defend themselves in cooperation with us. Not giving them reason to believe we are trying to kill them all is kind of important to that.

I have a feeling that the term, “Rules of Engagement,” was unknown in the Pacific, during World War 2.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM

My first inclination is to agree, but there were probably all kinds of rules meant to avoid friendly fire incidents, and, when fighting went into populated areas, there had to be some rules of how to deal with civilians, in accordance with the Geneva conventions.
It can be hard, knowing that the rules can decrease our solders’ ability to defend themselves in some cases, but they can sometimes be the whole point of doing something in the first place.

Tactically, the restrictive ROE endanger our troops every day, but strategically there is no doubt that strong ROE save the lives of even more.

Yeah, enemy lives.

Methinks, however, Wadood should read the Koran.