See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Substratum
2. Ace of Spades HQ
3. The Captain's Journal
4. Mudville Gazette

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101
   On September 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm, Republicanvet said:

   On September 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am, Red State Skeptic said:

   Now we’re second-guessing our armed forces?

   You really are rather stupid aren’t you?

   The question here is of the RoE put in place by either the military commanders, or the civilians (Obama’s minions) put in place.

   Since the RoE recently changed, with the same Commanders in place, its obvious the civilians changed the RoE.

   In the early days of Iraq, you were likely one whining about not having the right equipment in place such as armored Humvee’s or body armor.

   In this instance, the equipment was in place, but it could not be used because of civilian decisions.

   Which is worse? Not having it in place? or having it in place but choosing not to use it?

   Fool.

2. #102
   On September 16th, 2009 at 11:54 pm, rugger said:

   RepublicanVet– the ROE changed when a new commander was brought in (Gen. McChrystal). Not when a new civilian was put in place.

   Also these ROE are designed to help us win a counter-insurgency. That means not leveling a village just because we receive fire from it (the Soviets tried that in Afghanistan). And the ROE that our troops are operating under now give them the ability to supersede the concerns about civilians if they cannot disengage safely. This was clearly a situation where they couldn’t disengage. As was pointed out before, this points to a misapplication of the ROE and not the ROE themselves.

   Blind partisan politics arent going to help us win this war- just like they didnt help when Iraq was falling apart in 2005-06.

3. #103
   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am, rugger said:

   In case I wasnt clear, I am saying that under the current ROE the artillery should have been fired. So blaming Obama for ROE that lead to the death of these Marines is not right.

4. #104
   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:13 am, Republicanvet said:

   On September 16th, 2009 at 11:54 pm, rugger said:

   RepublicanVet– the ROE changed when a new commander was brought in (Gen. McChrystal). Not when a new civilian was put in place.

   How long has McChrystal been in place? When did the RoE change take place?

5. #106
   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:31 am, ironman said:

   Real shame that Curtis Lemay’s not in charge of the operations,or someone like him.

6. #107
   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:49 am, corkie said:

   On September 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm, zyzzyg said:

   Cork Soaker, you have got to know by now that I don’t care what you say. I have no respect for you, why do you bother commenting on what I have to say?

   You take tangents, don’t answer questions, and offer insults. I have no respect for you.

   I enjoy making you cower.

7. #108
   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:52 am, corkie said:

   On September 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am, rugger said:

   In case I wasnt clear, I am saying that under the current ROE the artillery should have been fired.

   I’ve never read a set of ROE which require engagement.

8. #109
   On September 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am, Papa Louie said:

   the U.S. advisors assisting Afghan forces had been assured before the operation that “air cover would be five minutes away.”

   It didn’t take long for commanders in the field to begin acting just like their Commander In Chief — say one thing and do another. Promise anything to get what you want and then throw them under the bus — they’re all expendable.

9. #110
   On September 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am, GraniteMan said:

   I am sick of Obama, his stupid apologies and his constant yammering on TV. My grandson with the Airborne has had two tours in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Can’t put on paper the anger and frustration I feel knowing we are putting these guys through hell when no one gives a rip. Rules are more important than they are. How can we send them into this??

10. #111
    On September 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am, rugger said:

    Gen. McChrystal took command in June and the ROE changes came in July.

    corkie– the ROE does not prevent commanders from using artillery or other indirect fire when their troops cannot disengage. And while we still need to wait for a full report to come out, it seems that these troops were not able to disengage from the enemy. The means when they were under fire that resulted in the deaths of 3 Marines and a sailor, and several other Marines wounded, their chain of command should have authorized the artillery strike. But again, we’ll have to wait for a report to see what happened and why the strike was denied.

11. #112
    On September 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am, BadIdeaGuy said:

    I predicted this when I read this article:

    KABUL – The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

    The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.

    Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year.

    Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence,” and not the number of militants killed.”

    In the same way that “jobs saved” is not a measurable goal, “civilians saved” is not either. This is a deadly serious problem with people whose heads are stuck up their in academia and government rather than business.

12. #113
    On September 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am, cheapseat said:

    political correctness in a war. somehow this reminds me of korea, viet nam, and the bay of pigs. when the state department and politicians start running wars, it is time to come home. all they will do is get a lot of good young men killed while they debate the necessity and decorum of the war. i lived this crap in viet nam, and i can tell you the soldiers died but were victorious in every battle they fought, while the limp wristed state department fairies made our losses futile in PARIS no less.

13. #114
    On September 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am, corkie said:

    On September 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am, rugger said:

    But again, we’ll have to wait for a report to see what happened and why the strike was denied.

    It’s strange that you say that “we’ll have to wait for a report,” immediately after definitively stating;

    The means when they were under fire that resulted in the deaths of 3 Marines and a sailor, and several other Marines wounded, their chain of command should have authorized the artillery strike.

    Again, please explain your use of the word, “should.”

14. #115
    On September 17th, 2009 at 6:56 pm, rugger said:

    corkie:

    I said it before that statement as well. I am saying that based off of the report we have so far (the reporter with the unit) and articles published since then (which only reveal that the helicopters were far away) we can try and talk about what happened, but we must be aware that something not revealed thus far may have been what lead to the artillery strike being withheld.

    Should as in they dont have to but they ought to. Kids should respect their elders, you should love the person you marry, etc. And while I guess no artilleryman HAS to send fire down range in support of men in contact, it would appear downright reckless not to if ROE does not prohibit it.

15. #116
    On September 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm, corkie said:

    rugger:

    On one hand, you state that there might be a good reason that artillery was withheld.

    On the other, you definitively state that they should have used artillery.

    Which is it?

    Do you wish to immediately reiterate your definitive statement that they should have used artillery?

    Or would you like to back away and agree that there may have been good reasons for it to have been withheld?

16. #117
    On September 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    Slightly OT – Canada prepares to stab US military in the back.

    A member of the Canadian Parliament named Kennedy (there’s a shock!) has introduced a bill changing their Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow “…other countries’ military deserters…” stay in Canada without fear of being deported. How many “…other countries’ military deserters…” from someplace other than the United States do you guess they get in Canada?

    I’m disgusted.

    ECS
    Captain, Armor
    US Army (Ret.)

17. #119
    On October 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am, Jimmie said:

    Ronald Reagan simplified War “We WIN….they LOOSE”. It cant be stated any simpler than that. Liberals cannot accept this….No it is way more complicated…we must allow them some victories….why??? so to be “nice”….Yes this all goes to the Commander in Chief’s desk His New “complicated” strategy is spelled out for all to see on CNN….Well uh….uh…well…its like this….we are going to be kinder….uh ….and….well uh…its going to take more time and I am sorta busy right now gotta find a couple more trillion dollars to spend…uh and uh we will…come up with…uh.. something at ….uh later time……It is reasonable to think that the best strategy now would be to beg for a cease fire so we can get our tails tucked properly for the big RUN FOR YOUR LIVES strategy … since the WIN thing seems uh…well…taken off the table…uh sorta speek