Tuesday, September 15, 2009

SOME SACIFICE ALL – new rules of engagement


I have read two different articles about the war in Afghanistan and in the last couple of days I have read some pretty disturbing things. I do not believe, what I'm about to comment on, was really reported because of our liberal news reporters that report only what they want you to hear. I do not know how it slipped through the cracks. During a recent battle in Afghanistan the United States commanders, quoted and referred to new rules of engagement to stop civilian casualties, in which they rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near any village." I bet you my last dollar that this was not the first time that it happened and it was totally ignored by the news papers and therefore went totally unnoticed by the American public. But this time there was someone to witness it, who had the doodads to write it down and publish it. I'm referring to the deaths of four United States soldiers that were killed by the rules of engagement they have to use when fighting the enemy. They are the new rules of engagement. This incident took place last Tuesday in an ambush, by Muslim terrorist, against Afghan forces and their U.S. trainers around the village of Ganjgal. There was a journalist whose name is Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers who was there and lived through the deadly firefight to write the following:


Specifically, the deaths of four U.S. Marines seemingly by the new rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. They the "U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."


What Landay describes and tells sounds like a terrible demonstration of what Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal talked about all summer and what many other people have called our war on civilian casualties. It is being waged, as thinking goes, to win Afghan "hearts and minds" and thus the "counterinsurgency" against the Taliban. Forget about the lives of our brave soldiers. McChrystal and this strategy currently have the over whelming support of both Obama and the Left wingers, who, with the help of a new conservative think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently wrote an open letter to President Obama specifically congratulated the president for choosing the McChrystal team, and put across confidence in its new strategy. According to their thinking protecting the Afghan people from, "Everything that can hurt them", will not only make the people like us, but they will help us. (Please who are they kidding) These people think that this kind of thinking will upset and stop the jihad that is being waged against people who do not believe the Muslim religion. But what this policy is really doing is increasing the dangers for our troops that have been sent in harm's way. Here is a statement that McChrystal made to the BBC: "It's a balance for the young soldier on the ground who is in combat. One of the assets that he has that might
save his life, might be air power or indirect fire from artillery or mortars and we don't want to take away that protection for him."
Now that to me is talking out of both sides of your mouth. The suggestion that our troops might be called on to think twice about saving their own lives was, to me, bone chilling. And more than ever after what happened this week is less soldier-on-the-ground uncertainty than commander-at-the-base wanting to pacify the Afghan Muslims. Here is what Landay's account said about this:


U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

In other words, McChrystal's soldiers on the ground wanted protection to save their lives and didn't get it. Now explain that!
This should be a national disgrace. A NATO-led investigation is under way into the incident, which on its face appears to be a natural result of the "hearts and minds" policy endorsed by Left and Right alike. As McChrystal put it last month:
"We're here to protect the Afghan people. And we're here to protect them from everything that can hurt them, both enemy activity but also inadvertent activity by Afghan forces or ours. So we're trying to build into the philosophy of our forces a incredible sensitivity and understanding that everything they may do must be balanced against the possibility of hurting anyone." That is anyone but our own!

Our arm forces have come a long way since World War Two. I read in an article wrote by Diana West were she quoted a statement from General Patton which were repeated in the Movie "Patton "by George C. Scott. This is what Patton said: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country." Today, our generals have something else in mind as we can see when McChrystal says: "The Afghan people are the reason we're here." I might be dumb as a stick like some of you liberals think that I am But I thought the reason we were in that country was to destroy the Taliban and their network of terrorism. If that is not the case then why are we there? Why are our young men dying every day, over there serving their country.
According to McClatchey's report this week, there is a troubling and disturbing suspicion that the Afghan people, local villagers and even security personnel, were behind the Ganjgal ambush in the first place. Now what is wrong with this picture? Why are our young men and women fighting and dying in a war that they cannot win (BECAUSE OF THIS REASON ONLY) their hands are being tied by politicians and generals who want to be politically correct.

There will be some who read this article who will not agree with me but you do not take a big stick to a gun fight and expect to win. You bring a bigger gun and then you are not afraid to use it. Will this war against terrorist be won in Washington by people who want to be politically correct or will it be won by soldiers who hands are untied and given the order to get it done?


Post a Comment