Musings

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Rule Changes

In the last few months our military in Afganistan have had the rules of engagement changed. Today their General has asked for a change in how we are fighting this war, or, the overseas contingency operation as the Obama administration now calls it. Not only was the name changed, what our troops have to do has changed. 1) Prisoners must have their rights read to them on the battlefield, (whatever they are) and, 2) if there is any hint of a non-combatent in the area they must hold fire. This is a great advantage to those that do not wear uniforms and can easily don female attire. It is like putting on armor for the Taliban fighters. Our troops are hamstrung, they cannot kill them and if they captrue them they cannot question them. Even the CIA is being raked over the coals for some questioning. If I were the commander in that theatre of operaton I would be most frustrated. Teaching troops to change how they were trained is not easy. It calls into question are resolve to win. We do nothing about the poppy trade, the tribe that is fighting on our side today may be fighting against us tomorrow. Is it time to pull out of there? It will be interesting to see what Obama has to offer when the General comes to Washington.

9 Comments:

  • Broadcasting one's weakness sounds silly to me, but it is not unprecedented.

    A few thousand years ago it was known that Egyptians revered cats as gods and would not harm a cat. Any army at war with Egypt simply had to bring along some cats.

    Tim (posting anonymously)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:35 AM  

  • And how do we know who or what is under those burkas............

    http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/fashionable.burkas.jpg

    By Blogger cheryl, at 11:48 AM  

  • I would not want to see the US pull out of Afghanistan completely but I WOULD get tough on ALL other countries to do their part. I would like to see every country in the UN provide military support (boots on the ground) in proportion to their GDP. The penalty for non-compliance should be loss of UN membership. If they are unwilling to contribute to world peace they do not deserve to be a UN member. (There might be a very few exceptions.)

    By Blogger John Beauregard, at 6:44 PM  

  • John,
    Do you think we will impose the same restrictions onto our allies that we put on ourselves? If we do, do you think they will put up with it?

    By Blogger Marcel, at 7:06 PM  

  • No, not if you expect maximum participation. The theater would be divided into different areas and assigned to like countries whose strengths best fit the area of conflict/mission. Recall the Allies united under US leadership (Eisenhower) but pretty much operated somewhat autonomously (as I understand it).

    By Blogger John Beauregard, at 5:55 PM  

  • An invading army has taken over the country because all the gangs are out of control and we are not safe. Our government is corupt and ineffective (or just down right evil). The gangs have taken their violence to other countries. They are difficult to tract down. The invading army kills my nephew because he looks like he might be in a gang (he's not, but he's a young male, so he fits the stereotype). The invading army's stray bullet hits me, an innocent bystander--clearly not in a gang. Yeah, I'm a little upset and I wish that invading army had a few rules about this kind of stuff.
    [I get better and want to use all my resources to fight the invading army that invaded to help save me.]

    Of course I don't want our troops to be in danger. We all know that loose lips sink ships, but if I'm recouperating from that stray bullet wound, don't you want me to hear that the invading army regrets its action and is trying to do something about these mistakes? Won't that make me a little less likely to use my resources to fight the invading army? Won't that make out troops safer in the long run?

    By Blogger KathrynVH, at 10:22 AM  

  • Kathy, Putting yourself into the position of an Afgan woman has a few faults. You are Western and do not live under Sharia law. Your nephew is also Western and is as free as you are. You are analysing this with that freedom that you have.

    If the tribal leader says to you to be at a certain place in order to give coverage for his fighters, you will be there or else. As an Afgan woman, your resources are very limited. It should be comforting to you that the invading army does not want to harm you. Yet, as an Afgan woman, you want your side to prevail even though you know your side to be ruthless, unlike the invading army that is considerate of non-hostiles.

    By Blogger Marcel, at 12:51 PM  

  • Kill the hostage, they probably sympathize with their capture. Sorry, I'm not buying it as a sound policy.

    By Blogger KathrynVH, at 10:49 AM  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 12:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home