1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

hussein's ideas on war

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by bigdogtx, May 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html


    Well, with his rules of engagement,,,,the soldiers should be able to get one of these real easy,,,,as well as themselves killed....
     
  2. Shooting Jack

    Shooting Jack Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,523
    Location:
    Blackshear, Georgia
  3. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,296
  4. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    thanks
     
  5. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops
    Families, soldiers fear emphasis binds the hands of its own fighting force

    By ANNE FLAHERTY, ROBERT BURNS

    The Associated Press
    updated 6:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2010

    WASHINGTON - A key to the U.S. approach to fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is this seemingly backward logic: The more aggressively you protect your own troops, the less secure they may be.

    The idea is that troops who put themselves at risk to protect innocents will ultimately help decrease violence against Americans. That's because every time U.S. forces inadvertently kill or wound a noncombatant, it outrages the families and communities of the victims and erodes support for the battle against militants, strategists say.

    So protecting civilians isn't only moral, it's considered good strategy.

    The idea is enshrined in the 2006 U.S. Army and Marine Corps field manual on counterinsurgency, or COIN, which says: "Ultimate success in COIN is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force."

    That partly explains why the U.S.-led NATO command in Afghanistan is considering recognizing soldiers for "courageous restraint" if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives — a proposal drawing fire in some military quarters.

    It also shows why President Barack Obama, at his news conference Wednesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, emphasized the importance — and the complications — of avoiding civilian deaths and injuries. Sometimes the strategy puts troops at greater immediate risk, he noted, but "that's a burden that we're willing to bear."

    The specific rules for when troops may use deadly force in Afghanistan are classified, but commanders over the past year have publicly announced stricter guidelines limiting the use of airstrikes and night raids.

    Although the policy is meant to advance the U.S. and NATO cause by building Afghan support at the grass roots, many soldiers and their families worry that by emphasizing restraint, the Pentagon is showing too much concern for the safety of foreign civilians and tying the hands of its own fighting force.

    Some lawmakers also have expressed alarm.

    'Let them fight'
    North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, who opposes U.S. involvement in the war, said he is unconvinced after being briefed last week on the specific rules about when U.S. troops can use deadly force.

    "You see these kids with their legs blown off and you just hope they were given a chance," he said. "They are too restricted. ... If you're going to send the U.S. military to fight, then let them fight."

    The complicating factor, however, is that the final outcome of this fight will depend less on arms than on ideas, in the view of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and others who say that military force alone cannot defeat the Taliban or stabilize the country.

    Iraq war veteran John Nagl, who helped write the 2006 counterinsurgency manual and is now president of the Center for a New American Security, acknowledges opinion is divided on the wisdom of making protection of civilians the first priority.

    "This issue is at the heart of counterinsurgency and of the difficulty that soldiers have in conducting counterinsurgency," he said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "It's one of the fundamental dilemmas we dealt with in writing the counterinsurgency manual. The fact is that to achieve the mission, individual soldiers have to accept more risk."

    Obama on Wednesday spelled it out in stark terms.

    "Oftentimes they're holding fire, they're hesitating," he said of U.S. troops seeking to avoid civilian casualties. "They're being cautious about how they operate, even though it would be safer for them to go ahead and just take these locations out."

    This carefulness, Obama said, is what the U.S. military stands for.

    "And that puts us more at risk, and it makes it more difficult. But that's a burden that we're willing to bear."

    Faced with danger
    Troops doing the fighting, as well as their families, can see it differently, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates heard when he appeared before a couple of hundred soldiers' spouses at Fort Riley, Kan., last Saturday.


    One spouse told him that she was troubled that soldiers are being asked to think twice before shooting — "in my opinion, to second-guess a spur of the moment decision" in the face of danger.

    "The first thing I'll tell you," Gates replied, "is that it is clear to every soldier in Afghanistan that he has every right to do whatever is necessary to protect himself. So if a soldier is under threat, he can do the appropriate thing," while keeping in mind the consequences of killing or hurting bystanders.

    "If we kill an innocent civilian, we recruit a family for the Taliban," he said.
     
  6. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    Remember when the stupid liberals thought electing Obama Hussein would end the wars. How's that working for you libs?
     
  7. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    "Desperate attempts to salvage something from "Bush's Wars". Over 70% of your tax dollars are now being spent on the military --with no end in sight."

    Seems to me IIRC some fool said something to the effect, "If elected, I will bring the troops home in 9 months",,,,what short memories some of us have....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.