Not even General's can speak their mind

[GO-NAD!]

Even here in the USA, if someone is suspected of breaking a serious law, we don’t give them 2 weeks notice of when we’re coming to check their homes.

Yeah, there is soemthing seriously wrong with that - if it's true. It just seems too bizarre.

On the other hand, I suppose I can believe it. I knew a guy who served in Bosnia, abck in the early '90s and they had some ridiculaous rules of engagement, mandated by the UN, of course.

They were not to show any aggression towards the local combatants. Well, one of the guys on patrol, carrying a C7 (M16) rifle was accosted by one of the locals, who wanted to see his rifle. When this was refused, the local became belligerent and tried to take it! He received the rifle butt to the nose for his efforts. Well! Our guy was severely raked over the coals and I think he might've (it's been a long time) been charged over the incident!

I can understand frustration over stifling ROE, but this ain't WW2. There are no clearly drawn lines and therefore there have to be some restrictions in place. They need to make sense though....

 

[aberkowitz]

No you are misconstruing my statement. IMO the job of the president in this situation is to make the big call and then support his troops while they do what they do. His job is not micromanagement or spin control. Support the troops! There WILL be civilian casualties, there will be screw ups, but don't make excuses for them, our troops are doing their best and not supporting them from the highest level is the worst course of action. We are not delivering girl scout cookies over there we are at war and it should be treated as such, not typical political BS and shadow games from the commander in chief and others...

I disagree to an extent. The job of the President is to make the big call, but then it's also his job to make sure that his call is being enacted properly. Going back throughout history, there are a large number of times where generals were fired b/c the President didn't like the job they were doing. Look back at the Civil War, World War I and World War II- lots of generals were fired/replaced in the middle of a war, and in the end these firings had positive long-term effects to the cause of winning the war.

In the case of the military, the President is the ultimate boss- just like any job a boss has authority to change his staff at any time he chooses. I don't understand why a general should be treated differently than any other manager in any other job- if the boss doesn't believe you're doing a good enough job then it is his obligation to make a change. The sign of a bad boss is to sit back idle while your direct reports perform badly.

In this case, McChrystal acted in a manner that was not respectful or professional towards his boss. I guarantee that if anyone of us were to bash our boss in such a public way in the media, we would lose our job tomorrow.

 

[krzywica]

I disagree to an extent. The job of the President is to make the big call, but then it's also his job to make sure that his call is being enacted properly. Going back throughout history, there are a large number of times where generals were fired b/c the President didn't like the job they were doing. Look back at the Civil War, World War I and World War II- lots of generals were fired/replaced in the middle of a war, and in the end these firings had positive long-term effects to the cause of winning the war.

In the case of the military, the President is the ultimate boss- just like any job a boss has authority to change his staff at any time he chooses. I don't understand why a general should be treated differently than any other manager in any other job- if the boss doesn't believe you're doing a good enough job then it is his obligation to make a change. The sign of a bad boss is to sit back idle while your direct reports perform badly.

In this case, McChrystal acted in a manner that was not respectful or professional towards his boss. I guarantee that if anyone of us were to bash our boss in such a public way in the media, we would lose our job tomorrow.

I completely agree with you. My comment was in response to the other post. I wholeheartedly agree that if you aren't getting the job done then its goodbye, but up until that point comes the president needs to stand behind the people that are currently in place. Thats the last job in the world that you need to be worrying about job security.

 

[Nemo128]

Thanks all for turning a good conversation about facts and laws into a typical biased political rant in which everyone "based on their infinite wisdom and experience" is right.

 

[JerryLove]

Are you serious?

Obama and Biden adjust the facts to meet their dogmatic partisan views. When Senators Obama and Biden slammed the "failed" strategy and leadership of General Petraeus and the surge in Iraq, it only proved one thing - that they adjust the facts to meet their dogmatic partisan views.

And for the record, Obama has never admitted he was wrong about the surge. Against overwhelming proof and universal acceptance, the best he could say was that while the surge had succeeded in reducing violence, "But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war." (Quoting from your MSNBC link). Doesn't sound like an apology to me.

Speaking of facts. Did I say "apologize".

Obama quotes: "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." and "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,".

Add to that, President Obama supported a similar surge in Afghanistan, and has put the author of the Iraq surge in charge of the Afghan theater.

So "yes, I am serious" and "I don't think it's Obama's rewriting of the facts that's at issue in this case".

 

[JerryLove]

Actually in that scenario pretty much anything goes with regards to search and seizure in the US since, oh about a few day after 911 hit. So by your own logic foreign war zones "citizens" have more rights than US citizens suspected of terrorist activity. Little ditty some nameless person cooked up called the Patriot Act.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

I did and do oppose portions of the Patriot act as a violation of those "inalienable rights" mentioned in the preamble and enumerated in the bill of rights.

 

[JerryLove]

I made an error...a Police Officer needs Probable Cause to obtain a Warrant (not reasonable suspicion). Once enough facts have been established, the court grants a warrant. In war, Probably Cause is established by intelligence...the difference lies in how its executed....No Warrant! Obama's rules of engagement give a notice to the residence/location in question and after a period of time, the place is searched. What happened to the Element of Surprise? We basically just say hey, we are on to you and we know what you're doing, we be back in a few days to see if we were right. Doesn't work.

Let's be clear on what we are discussing... and we'll look at one extreme of it. Bombing a structure because someone believes there are terrorists in it.

Should there be rules to try to make sure there actually are terrorists there and that the innocent are protected?

I believe by the laws of war set forth by the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Protocol...I know they cover the use of weapons. Then we go by our rules of engagement.

Are we at war with Iraq? Where are the limits of civilian law? Can we bust into houses in France? How about the US?

Things can still be done with caution, but handing over a piece of paper like a warrant is ridiculous in war.

I think we should stick to the principle argument rather than worry over the minutia of execution.

If you say so...I would much rather keep the fight there, then retreat and the terrorists follow us home and attack us. I think less innocent people would die there then here.

That's wrong on so many levels.

Let's start with the death toll. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead. That's more than 200 years of attacks on America (civil war not withstanding).

And which terrorsts do you feel we are keeping over there? The NY sqare bomber? The DC sniper? The shoe bomber? The underware bomber? The guy mailing anthrax?

How many Americans have died in the 10 years since 9/11 due to terrorists? How many in the 10 before it?

But I feel you are trying to muddy the waters by discussing something different than what we were discussing a moment ago.

I'm advocating protecting civilians in Iraq. What are you arguing in support of?

 

[James NM]

Speaking of facts. Did I say "apologize".

Obama quotes: "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." and "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,".

Add to that, President Obama supported a similar surge in Afghanistan, and has put the author of the Iraq surge in charge of the Afghan theater.

So "yes, I am serious" and "I don't think it's Obama's rewriting of the facts that's at issue in this case".

Where I come from, admitting you are wrong is analogous to apologizing. Obama did not admit he was wrong, and he did not apologize. He simply stated the obvious - the surge was wildly successful.

So let's look at your quotes from Obama and find his admission of being wrong.
1). "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." His dreams maybe. I do believe he expected and hoped the surge would fail. But admitting to what everyone else already knows (sometimes called "reality") is different then admitting he was wrong.
2). "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated." Well, if this is his admission of being wrong, he is, in fact, wrong again. Just because he expected the surge to fail certainly doesn't mean that "nobody" thought it would succeed. This is a blatantly and demonstratively false statement.

If you are trying to prove that Obama admitted he was wrong, perhaps you should find a quote that is not in itself wrong.

 

[kickerofelves]

"Entire", no. "A sizable amount", most likely. They are the ones with training and experience in these matters, not most elected officials.

I spent my career in the Army, most of it in the Special Ops community. I'll tell you right now that most of those who come under a 'sizable amount' and are opposed to it aren't experts at counter-insurgency.

You'll always hear--and I spent a career dealing with this--grunts, squad or platoon leaders and sometimes even company commanders complain about rules of engagement in these situations. They are hampered by a mentality--understandable--mired in a conventional war mindset.

There is a reason privates and platoon leaders don't develop strategy.

You don't like the ROEs? Tough. They are there so you don't kill civilians. You kill innocent civilians and you've just put their family or clan over into the insurgent camp. Now you've made the task harder for future patrols or other units yet to deploy there by creating yet another sniper, mortar team, or even just handing out food to the Taliban.

This is a counter-insurgency, the civilian population is one of our 'targets' to capture; in this case to neutralize the insurgents use of their resources, recruits, intelligence, etc.

The mission is more important than your life. If that means you go on patrol with restricted ability to flatten a village with arty so be it.

McChrystal knew what he was doing (before his staff had a brain-fart) and Petreaus was the architect of his strategy. Counter-insurgencies are not easy to fight, they are complicated, deal with cultural understanding almost as much as military prowess. You want easy become a postman or sell insurance.

 

[krzywica]

Thanks all for turning a good conversation about facts and laws into a typical biased political rant in which everyone "based on their infinite wisdom and experience" is right.

Its about time somebody noticed I have ample ammounts of both.

I spent my career in the Army, most of it in the Special Ops community. I'll tell you right now that most of those who come under a 'sizable amount' and are opposed to it aren't experts at counter-insurgency.

You'll always hear--and I spent a career dealing with this--grunts, squad or platoon leaders and sometimes even company commanders complain about rules of engagement in these situations. They are hampered by a mentality--understandable--mired in a conventional war mindset.

There is a reason privates and platoon leaders don't develop strategy.

You don't like the ROEs? Tough. They are there so you don't kill civilians. You kill innocent civilians and you've just put their family or clan over into the insurgent camp. Now you've made the task harder for future patrols or other units yet to deploy there by creating yet another sniper, mortar team, or even just handing out food to the Taliban.

This is a counter-insurgency, the civilian population is one of our 'targets' to capture; in this case to neutralize the insurgents use of their resources, recruits, intelligence, etc.

The mission is more important than your life. If that means you go on patrol with restricted ability to flatten a village with arty so be it.

McChrystal knew what he was doing (before his staff had a brain-fart) and Petreaus was the architect of his strategy. Counter-insurgencies are not easy to fight, they are complicated, deal with cultural understanding almost as much as military prowess. You want easy become a postman or sell insurance.

I just spoke to my brother who is over there right now (Army). And he told me what the media is dishing out couldn't be farther from the truth. He said that all the civilians are happy they are there and they wave and thank them whenever they see them.

I did and do oppose portions of the Patriot act as a violation of those "inalienable rights" mentioned in the preamble and enumerated in the bill of rights.

I would say most law abiding citizens would be apposed to parts of the Patriot Act, myself included. Funny how they give these massive bills cute little names so if you appose it they can flip you on your ear and say "You appose the Patriot Act!!?? You are obviously not a Patriot and anti-American".

Because if they named it "The tag and bag in the middle of the night without a warrant act" I don't think it would have gone with so little notice.

 

[markw]

500,000 troops for five years.

"Embedded in General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan is his conclusion that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years."

See link here

Since it's plainly obvious that we are neither willing nor capable of doing this, and the opposition know this, they are just sitting back biding their time.

Meanwhile, the remaining troops are so hamstrung that they cannot even protect themselves.

Since we're not going to be able to finish what we started, we should simply get out before more of our lives are lost and leave that place to the warlords which have run it for centuries.

Good soldiers are dying for nothing, and good commanders abhor this.

 

[kickerofelves]

"Embedded in General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan is his conclusion that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years."

See link here

McChrystal didn't mean U.S. troops, he included Afghan National Army soldiers in the equation. The writer doesn't believe that the increase in Afghanistani soldiers will happen; they already number over 110,000 and part of the increase in U.S. presence are instructors and training resources. Over a 5 year period it's really not unthinkable.

Meanwhile, the remaining troops are so hamstrung that they cannot even protect themselves.

I know for a fact that troops are allowed to defend themselves when fired upon. If commanders at Brigade or Battalion level misinterpret the ROEs--which is what happened in two incidents--it doesn't make them (ROEs) bad.

Since we're not going to be able to finish what we started, we should simply get out before more of our lives are lost and leave that place to the warlords which have run it for centuries.

Good soldiers are dying for nothing, and good commanders abhor this.

I can't for the life of me fathom a strategy that has us successful--to some degree--in Iraq a war with no real reason to be fought and not follow through on Afghanistan a war that we have the right (and a reason) to be waging after 911.

I know of no commander--at least personally I have never known or met one--who thinks his soldiers are fighting for nothing in Afghanistan. Frustrated? Sometimes yeah?

 

[GO-NAD!]

I can't for the life of me fathom a strategy that has us successful--to some degree--in Iraq a war with no real reason to be fought and not follow through on Afghanistan a war that we have the right (and a reason) to be waging after 911.

I'm not yet convinced that Iraq has been a success. If it is a functional democracy 3-4 years after US troops are completely gone, I'll be convinced. Right now, the rule of law and adherence to democratic principles is pretty tenuous. And, there is still a significant amount of violence going on...