As President Obama dithers and waffles October became the deadliest month for the US in the Afghan War.
(ICasualties)
The average monthly US deaths in Afghanistan have nearly quadrupled since Barack Obama took over in January.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 3:17 PM
Jim Hoft
October 27th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #1
Did’nt the debt triple also under Obamao?
October 27th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #2
It ain’t no coincidence. Iran,al-Qaeda and the Taliban have all seen that the Democrats in charge have no stomach for war. They know that they can never beat American troops but they know that they can beat the cut and runners in the White House and in Congress. The American media may close it’s eyes to the fact that Obama isn’t a very good CIC but that fact isn’t lost on America’s enemies.
They know weakness when they see it and they will exploit it.
October 27th, 2009 | 3:45 pm | #3
I think he wants our troops killed.
4 US Soldiers Killed today in Afghanistan UPDATE: The Dead were DENIED Artillery Support Because of Obama Administration’s New Rules of Engagement….
UPDATE: 9/9 1:52 PM Afghanistan: 4 US Marines Die After Walking Into Taliban Ambush…DENIED Artillery Support Because of Obama Administration’s New Rules of Engagement…. Wesel Zippers (hat tip sasda)
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
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.
The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village’s first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/4-us-soldiers-killed-today-in-afghanistan.html
Sept 8th, 2009
October 27th, 2009 | 3:47 pm | #4
Should we ask why the DEA was aboard the helicopter crash yesterday?
October 27th, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #5
John Kerry on Afghanistan- Allow me to disconcur
http://minx.cc/?post=294045
October 27th, 2009 | 3:52 pm | #6
Unacceptable. The devil in the WH and his minions in Congress will pay for this and all the atrocities they plan for America and the world.
October 27th, 2009 | 3:55 pm | #7
I guess we can look forward to the vultures in the media to have the cameras ready to photograph our returning heroes in the flag-draped coffins…or was that just when Bush was President?
/I think I know the answer.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #8
May God have mercy on the souls of these fallen heroes, and may He in his mercy, touch the hearts and enlighten the minds of the nations representatives to guide them to act in truth.
Amen
October 27th, 2009 | 4:11 pm | #9
That’s what happens when you have an administration that could care less about the war and instead focuses its undying attention on domestic agendas. Obama is a fake. Obama is a fraud. Obama is no Commander in Chief. I am slotted to go to Afghanistan next year and I can tell you I have no confidence or faith in Obama and neither do most of the soldiers I’m with.
Check out my blog, comment, vote, and let me know what you think.
http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com
October 27th, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #10
But OSH*T-HEAD said he’d back them to THE HILT.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:19 pm | #11
Very Dimwitted. Our casualties were over 3000 because we didn’t fight Islamofascists. Did you like those good old days LIBTARD?
Having your ARMY, NOT FIGHT is a guarantee for dead Americans.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:20 pm | #12
No, you aren’t very impressive, at all. 4:13 #9
Your lack of concern for your betters is shameful, and your attempt at logic fails. If we pull our of Afghanistan, the Islamists will be greatly emboldened, which means that they will be able to raise money and more recruits to kill us and far many more Muslims. We will be attacked, and we will wind up pouring out our treasure and the lives of our troops. And, the GWOT will be extended by about twenty years. That’s what losing this phase will do for us.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:24 pm | #13
And, quit trying to pretend that everybody that supports a vigorous response to the war that the Islamists have been waging against us for the past 50 years is a conservative!
Euston manifesto
It isn’t liberal to ignore the suffering of others.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:33 pm | #14
I think you missunderstood… He meant he would stab them in the back TO THE HILT
This teleprompter in chief is a joke and a puppet and should resign.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #15
@Valerie #12
Hack Wilson (#9) is a soldier. You need to respect YOUR betters. Unless you have fought or going to fight in Afghanistan, defer your harsh judgment of the men and women who will and will have to do so under a incompetent CIC.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #16
Hack
Thank you for your service. Most of us are not self-agrandizing INGRATES, and appreciate your sacrifice and that of your family more than we can ever show.
God bless.
October 27th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #17
Very Impressive….then go away already. Your liberal blabber is unwelcome, and your ideologues are destroying America.
Want to save the planet?
October 27th, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #18
Valerie,
Respect those who wear and who have worn the uniform
October 27th, 2009 | 4:59 pm | #19
VI, go debate someone at DUmmies or PuffHo and see how fast you get banned. BTW, you weren’t here to discuss anything, you just wanted to spew the same inane liberal drivel we get from martin, joe stool, et al.
October 27th, 2009 | 5:00 pm | #20
Very Impressive
October 27th, 2009 | 4:42 pm | #17
Who the hell are you referring to VI? Must be that warmongering pos obama because he has his hands on the wheel steering the war now.
Now go on back to du or daily kos and crow like one of those little Cornish roosters about how you really unloaded on those consevatives
October 27th, 2009 | 5:02 pm | #21
Sybil
October 27th, 2009 | 3:47 pm | #4
Should we ask why the DEA was aboard the helicopter crash yesterday?
It was a drug-enforcement mission. Afghanistan produces 90 percent of the poppies used in the global opium trade. Opium farming finances the Taliban and the drug lords, who are no different from the Mexican narco-terrorists.
Try to guess the political affiliation of all those Europeans and Americans who buy illegal drugs and thus finance global terrorism. Would most of them be liberals or conservatives, do you think?
October 27th, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #22
Looks like the administrator took out old “VI’s” rant before mine even hit the board.
Good riddance, I say!
October 27th, 2009 | 5:36 pm | #23
Both bush and Obama have done a poor job at the Afghan war. We spend our time in Kabul worrying about a Dear Central Leader
Afghans want the same thing Tea Party folks want, and that is Liberty. The Afghans people want to grow their crops, raise their children, take care of mom and dad. They want to live a simple life and have no desire to change it. They have a lot in common with Tea Party movement. As governments want Central Power, Afghans want to take care of family.
October 27th, 2009 | 5:36 pm | #24
Try to guess the political affiliation of all those Europeans and Americans who buy illegal drugs and thus finance global terrorism. Would most of them be liberals or conservatives, do you think?
What a great point, never thought of it. Most of my liberal friends are for the legalization of not only marijuana, but other lethal drugs.
On another note, did anyone hear John Kerry drone on today about “going too far too fast?”:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56161
To think, this man was almost president.
October 27th, 2009 | 5:42 pm | #25
God bless you, Richard! I can’t listen to John F’n Kerry without the urge to puncture my eardrums with an icepick.
October 27th, 2009 | 5:48 pm | #26
October 27th, 2009 | 5:02 pm | #21
I understand that, but aren’t our soldiers trained to fight the Al Qeada and and Taliban terrorists not the drug cartels and chopping down poppy plants.
Opium production is down, since the farmers over harvested the crop during the Bush/Chaney admin.
I don’t know, I guess we can only look at things what is morally wrong or right. About somethings, we can’t seem to get truth enough to make an informed decision. Just don’t trust absolutely anything this admin does; ever never trust again!!!
“NATO said the helicopter was returning from a joint operation that targeted insurgents involved in “narcotics trafficking in western Afghanistan.”
Good article;
h/t LC
Oh well, the o one does’t do narcotics anyway, he’s into cocaine and wee weed. Maybe that’s why he waned Zaleya to stay in power, he allowed the trafficers to flow to America via Honduras. And of course he bad mouthed Columbia’s fight the war on drugs.
October 27th, 2009 | 6:06 pm | #27
With Iraq now fully won by all accounts thanks to George Bush. The Jihadist had to go to friendlier location and Afghanistan fit the bill. those that are attacking are new to the area and they came from Iraq.
Lets hope those that won in Iraq will be allowed to win in Afghanistan
October 27th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #28
++
via TRBO
The Long, Long Goodbye
[Afghanistan was a mess before the October 2001 operation that felled the Taliban; Afghanistan is a mess everyday since October 2001. Is it a worse mess because of Bush? It is if you are practicing blame-shifting for dummies. Who are the dummies? They would be the small piece of the American public that answers brain-twister poll questions such as “Do you support President Obama’s decision in Afghanistan?”
[..]
This is POTUS saying goodbye to Afghanistan. It will take four years to say goodbye — a long, long goodbye of blame-shifting and speaking as if he is worried and vigilant –, and then after the re-election, POTUS can say goodbye all over again.
POTUS is a man with a foot out the door, and if you challenge his direction, he will remind you he is cleaning up after Bush and Cheney as fast as he can. Deeply cynical. Who is responsible for those air crashes in Afghanistan (above)? Bush and Cheney. Correct. Now you are on the team.]
*sigh*
==
October 27th, 2009 | 6:11 pm | #29
++
oops re: bg @ 6:09 pm #28
via TRBO link..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 6:41 pm | #30
++
i’m confused..
who is very impressive @ 4:13 #9??
it’s certainly not Hack @ 4:11 pm #9..
btw, Valerie has always been extremely
supportive & respectful of our troops..
and as far as i can tell, she & Hack agree..
was there an offending post deleted??
==
October 27th, 2009 | 6:43 pm | #31
The only reason Afghanistan is becoming so deadly for US troops is because we won in Iraq and the radical jihadi’s have no place left to fight US troops.
This would have happened no matter who was elected last fall, but the difference is that Pres Obama has no clue as to how to respond to the increased attacks by the Taliban and AQ.
October 27th, 2009 | 7:22 pm | #32
This POTUS has no clue whatsoever period as to handle a crisis situation. I am fearful as to the future of our country.
October 27th, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #33
It’s not just that obama doesn’t really care about the troops (and he doesn’t) dying. It’s that he wants to see America subjected to a humiliating defeat at the hands of 7thCentury savages.
If the USA wins in Afghanistan and defeats the taliban/al queda savages, it will show the world that America is still the top dog on the block. That our troops (and our allies, too) are the best at any type of war.
It will be a reaffirmation of American excellence; because we shall have done what no other force in the world has ever been able to do.
And, to obama, that would be bad.
But obama doesn’t want that (and, more importantly, his controllers/owners do not want it.think soros). He wants the USA to be defeated. Not only defeated, but humiliated on the field of battle. He wants to be able to withdraw the troops – after a defeat – in disgrace.
He wants the United States to be brought low before the world; and our American exceptionalism to be stripped from us. Obama wants America to be equal to – but certainly not better than – every other flaccid little limp-wristed, euro wienie country in the world.
And he wants the other countries of the world to see that America is no longer in a position to assist them in a struggle for freedom. That they are on their own.
Obama is embarrassed by American exceptionalism in part, because he is so unexceptional. He’s just a mousy little man, owned and controlled by others, who is far and away out of his depth.
October 27th, 2009 | 7:43 pm | #34
Ditto Solaratov. You hit the nail on the head. We are above Obama’s thinking.
October 27th, 2009 | 7:59 pm | #35
“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.”
So, I guess the military does listen to Obama – go figure. Now the men in the field can’t even trust their own to support them. Whose lives are important here anyhow……d*mn it.
October 27th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #36
So how many troops have died now because of Obama’s new rules of engagement anyhow? So in possibly saving civilians, is it better that the American soldiers should die in their stead? It seems the troops aren’t given the cover they need because they think there are civilians in the area – is that all it takes?
October 27th, 2009 | 8:18 pm | #37
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 7:59 pm | #35
So, I guess the military does listen to Obama – go figure. Now the men in the field can’t even trust their own to support them.
Wrong again, Joanne. The military brass covered its collective rear end in Iraq, too. Each general, colonel, major, captain, and lieutenant added another restriction on the rules of engagement until our troops were basically unable to respond except when the enemy was shooting directly at them from point-blank range.
General Petraeus changed all that by instituting the definitive rules of engagement and overruling all the scaredy-cats in the chain of command. And the president at the time was George W. Bush.
We don’t need Canadian propagandists here trying to undermine our armed forces. The problem you describe has always existed. As much as you want to convince us that Obama will destroy everything unless we do play along with your agenda, you’re wrong about what’s happening in Afghanistan. Sorry.
October 27th, 2009 | 8:21 pm | #38
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #36
So how many troops have died now because of Obama’s new rules of engagement anyhow? So in possibly saving civilians, is it better that the American soldiers should die in their stead? It seems the troops aren’t given the cover they need because they think there are civilians in the area – is that all it takes?
1. They aren’t Obama’s rules of engagement. They are General McChrystal and General Petraeus’s rules of engagement.
2. Our troops are still able to defend themselves regardless of how many civilians are in the area. They are required to break off an attack if it endangers civilians.
We don’t need Canadian propagandists here spreading lies about what’s happening in Afghanistan. As much as you want to mislead us, it’s not going to work. Sorry.
October 27th, 2009 | 8:33 pm | #39
++
Hypogean..
wrong..
Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan
[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” — not the number of militants killed.
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” Smith said. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”]
General Ptreaus: rules of engagement
GP may have marshmellowed them a bit under Bush..
but McChrystal toasted them over an open fire under Obama..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 8:56 pm | #40
It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the new ROE has been devastating for our troops and has severely crippled their ability to win this war, should victory really be the goal. And with this twit in the WH, we know victory is not the goal. His goal is to destroy the America he loathes including the military. He doesn’t give a rat’s patooty about Afghanistan or the troops. He is a monster.
October 27th, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #41
Who cares if our troops die or unemployment goes through the roof or the economy collapses – did you see O’s golf swing?
I mean, WOW! O! You are the bomb!
Have you seen Michelle’s toned arms?
I mean – mmm mmm mmmmm!
And just the other day, Barack was showing how IT WAS DONE on the dance floor at one of the lavish, Versailles-style weekend White House parties!
It’s all sooooo much more fun that that droll Bush!
We got us a REAL president in the White House!
Hope and Change!
October 27th, 2009 | 9:02 pm | #42
I’m not sure even 100,000 troops would have prevented two helicopters from crashing.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:18 pm | #43
bg
October 27th, 2009 | 8:33 pm | #39
++
Hypogean..
wrong..
What’s wrong? Joanne said these are Obama’s rules of engagement. They aren’t. She also said that the military is “listening to Obama” causing the deaths of our troops. I pointed out that butt-covering commanders made the ROE overly restrictive in Iraq, too, under Bush.
From the Petraeus link you posted:
Protecting the population really has to be the top priority. It’s job number one. In fact, as we embark on the new strategy here in recent months, that has been the emphasis, to try to improve the security for the population, certainly with Iraqi security forces, but that became our number one priority.
That’s what McChrystal says, too. For some reason when Petraeus won the war in Iraq based on changing the ROE, that was great, but now that McChrsystal is doing the same thing in Afghanistan, it’s wrong.
Sorry. I’m not going to let Joanne’s lies about Afghanistan slip by.
Did ROE in A-Stan lead to Marine deaths?
The answer is no. Michelle Malkin has a post up now titled “Report: Rules of engagement led to soldiers’ deaths”. I wrote her to explain why this is not the case…
The new directive specifically states that if a unit cannot safely disengage, then they can use fire support against civilian locations.
(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/09/did-roe-in-astan-lead-to-marine-deaths.html
The deaths of the marines were caused by timid commanders misapplying the ROE. The exact same problem happened in Iraq under Bush.
We can find tons of fault in Obama when in comes to Afghanistan, but saying that the new rules of engagement are killing our troops is a lie.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:19 pm | #44
Sasja
October 27th, 2009 | 8:56 pm | #40
It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the new ROE has been devastating for our troops and has severely crippled their ability to win this war, should victory really be the goal.
Not true. Don’t let the propagandists mislead you. Read this article:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/09/did-roe-in-astan-lead-to-marine-deaths.html
October 27th, 2009 | 9:20 pm | #45
++
ps re: bg @ 8:33 pm #39
Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan
[standard disclaimer: source Wikipedia]
Thank You & God Bless Canada!!
btw: Canada has 1/3 the US population..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 9:21 pm | #46
++
Hypogean @ 9:18 pm #43
not getting into a nonsense debate with you..
my point was the ROE were changed..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 9:27 pm | #47
bg
October 27th, 2009 | 9:21 pm | #46
++
Hypogean @ 9:18 pm #43
not getting into a nonsense debate with you..
I’m posting the reality ofthe ROE in Afghanistan, so that I can counter the lies spread by our Canadian pal here. If you consider that nonsense, fine. But my posts will inform the rational people out there that Joanne is not telling the truth.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:29 pm | #48
The increase in casualties in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Obama at this time. It’s a product of the surge. US forces are pressing out into areas that have not been patrolled, or only flown over, so an increase in deaths is to be expected, and was predicted by the Bush administration when this current surge began.
My son is over there right now working with US forces in his capacity as a Canadian soldier and he makes no bones about the fact that US forces are taking over huge regions previously run by the Taliban or contested. You can be assured that as the US surges, deaths will increase for a short while because everywhere your forces go, they’ll be kicking hornet’s nests of Taliban. Every offensive phase is costly.
The point is that even more soldiers are needed, and you Americans can expect high casualty rates until all the regions being surged are under control. The sooner Obama sends in more troops, the sooner the really bloody part of this can get finished.
The toughest part comes after that … which will be sticking it out for 10 years. That’s how long it’ll take, at least, for Afghanistan to educate enough kids so that the country can even begin to move forward in a big way. Right now, there aren’t even enough literate people to run a bureaucracy.
Only the US has the manpower and equipment power to pull this off … but I’m not sure your POTUS is up to it.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #49
++
oops bg @ 9:20 pm #45
re: [btw: Canada has 1/3 the US population..]
think i’m way off on that..
[same disclaimer]
==
October 27th, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #50
Just to reiterate, the new ROE in Afghanistan allow our troops to call in artillery and gunship strikes on areas occupied by civilians. That’s reality.
Just like in Iraq, local commanders can misinterpret ROE. It happens in every war. The ROE Are not getting our troops killed in Afghanistan, Don’t fall for that lie, because the people pushing it have an agenda. They want you to mistrust General McChrystal and General Petraeus. Don’t let them undermine your faith in our military.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:32 pm | #51
Thanks for your input, Paul, and thank your son for his service. I’m very grateful.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:39 pm | #52
++
Hypogean @ 9:27 pm #47
truth is in the eye of the beholder, as are opinions.. fact still remains, the
ROE in Afghanistan were changed, and Canadians are fighting & dying as
well..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 9:44 pm | #53
Thanks Hypogean … I’ll be sure to pass that on :)
bg: Canada has 1/10 the population of the USA. As a percentage of population and forces in Afghanistan, we’ve lost by far the highest percentage of soldiers … but part of that is because our guys didn’t have equipment like Cougars and heavy lift helicopters.
That being said, our forces rely heavily on US forces, especially in airpower. Our two forces work together very well and since the US surge began, Canada has been able to get far better control of the regions we are responsible for.
The US surge is making a huge sea change in Afghanistan. McChrystal is right though, all forces there need to live with the people, to get their trust, and keep the bad guys from infiltrating. It’s a really long painful process.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #54
““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.”
So, I guess the military does listen to Obama – go figure. Now the men in the field can’t even trust their own to support them. Whose lives are important here anyhow……d*mn it.”
Tom W. – who is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces? Hey? Bush was blamed for everything and anything, but blaming Obama, who is the Commander in Chief, is somehow a lie…..it is all the Generals’ faults or something? I am pointing out that military personnel follow the rules, and guess what, I doubt they like them, but they still follow them. Sorry man, but this is how it all starts – just look to Britain for an example. The police do as they are told, even when they don’t like it…..I don’t make up this reality, but it is still the reality none the less.
I have relatives in the U.S. military, and my concern is with the lives of them and the rest of the fighting men and women, not some Generals who tow the line and their Command-in-Chief who doesn’t give a crap. Somewhere along the line, people have to stand up for what is right, and that is the bottom line.
“We can find tons of fault in Obama when in comes to Afghanistan, but saying that the new rules of engagement are killing our troops is a lie.” by Tom W.
Man, your true colors are out there for everyone to see. Everyone and their conservative dog thinks Obama’s rules of engagement are getting the military killed but for some reason, this reality just seems to have gone over your head.
And mister, I do not lie. I may be mistaken, but I certainly do not lie, but you wouldn’t know about this concept…..would you.
October 27th, 2009 | 9:57 pm | #55
The ROE were changed, and there is no doubt that obama had some sort of input into the change. But I do not believe that he and his cabal sat down and wrote a new ROE and handed it to McChrystal and said, “this is the way it’s going to be.”
Had that been the case, I believe that McChrystal and Patraeus would have resigned,
McChrystal wrote the ROE as he did because he believes in running a COIN op in A-stan. (I think that’s the wrong move at this time – but, then, I’m not the general.)
As Hypogean said, the real restrictions on the ROE come from commanders at lower ranks who tighten or misinterpret the ROE. And some want to just cover their a** until they can get their ticket punched and get back to the Pentagon. Until the military can somehow keep officers like that out of combat areas, bad things are going to happen.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:00 pm | #56
++
Paul from Canada @ 9:29 pm #48
please give my thanks to your dear son..
may i also thank you & yours for the sacrifices
made in this necessary war against terrorism..
Paul from Canada @ 9:44 pm #53
re: [bg: Canada has 1/10 the population of the USA.]
yes, i kind of knew that, i’m just very bad at math.. :D
and thanks for the boots on the ground info.. (thumbsup)
==
October 27th, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #57
“The ROE Are not getting our troops killed in Afghanistan, Don’t fall for that lie, because the people pushing it have an agenda. They want you to mistrust General McChrystal and General Petraeus. Don’t let them undermine your faith in our military.” by Tom W.
You are one evil dude, and you can say what you will and lie about those who disagree with you, but the facts don’t change. So you are stating my agenda is for the American people to mistrust General McChrystal and General Petraeus and to undermine the faith people have in the U.S. military. You are way out of line, but don’t let your good lie get in the way of the truth.
Go way back up to #3 posting and read, even though I realize your reading comprehension is limited, try to follow along:
“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 does this say to you Tom W. – it says, “U.S. commanders, citing ‘new rules’ to avoid civilian casualities, rejected repeated calls………despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”
What’s up with that Tom W.? Why don’t you make that clear to everyone here, before shooting off your mouth and calling me a liar, which is really rich, considering that is one of your favourite pastimes.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #58
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #54
Joanne, you’re trying to do the same thing that your less-than-honorable friend, craig, did. You know that Tom W. has a stalker, yet you continue to try to identify him – thereby endangering his life and that of his family – for your own crude, common purposes.
Only someone who is truly deranged and a coward would do such a thing.
I’d advise you to cease your actions vis-a-vis Tom or you are going to find your cowardly little butt banned by popular demand.
I don’t care how fanatically you want to support the birther movement – but you had better stop NOW your cowardly acts.
And, it is my intention to email Jim and demand your immediate banning if you ever do it again. And I’m not alone in this.
You have been warned, bi+ch!
October 27th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #59
Solaratov – where ever the problem lies, whether further down the military food chain or not, there is a grave problem with the rules of engagement when the U.S. military on the ground is being denied support, especially considering the boots on the ground know the situation and are still being denied support.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #60
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #54
Tom W. – who is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces? Hey? Bush was blamed for everything and anything, but blaming Obama, who is the Commander in Chief, is somehow a lie…..
You’re simply wrong about the ROE killing our troops in Afghanistan. They aren’t Obama’s ROE, and they aren’t killing our troops.
Everyone and their conservative dog thinks Obama’s rules of engagement are getting the military killed but for some reason, this reality just seems to have gone over your head.
Because I think for myself. I’m not a crowd follower.
And mister, I do not lie.
What are you, a hard-boiled detective in a 1950’s film noir? Can you get more melodramatic and cheesy?
October 27th, 2009 | 10:18 pm | #61
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #57
What does this say to you Tom W. – it says, “U.S. commanders, citing ‘new rules’ to avoid civilian casualities, rejected repeated calls………despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”
Here we go for the third time:
The new directive specifically states that if a unit cannot safely disengage, then they can use fire support against civilian locations.
(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/09/did-roe-in-astan-lead-to-marine-deaths.html
It’s not the new ROE. It’s how the commanders are interpreting them, just like happened in Iraq.
The new ROE say–explicitly–that commanders can indeed do what these commanders said they could not. These commanders made a mistake.
The new ROE are not getting our troops killed. Anyone who says that is wrong or a liar.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:20 pm | #62
++
Solaratov @ 10:06 pm #58
that happens i will voluntarily take my leave..
who’s running this establishment Obama??
because you’re sounding like an Obama thug,
freedom of speech for me but not for thee??
oh, and let it be known.. this is NOT about JOANNE
or anyone else for that matter, it’s about PRINCIPLE..
same goes for my previous posts..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 10:20 pm | #63
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #59
Solaratov – where ever the problem lies, whether further down the military food chain or not, there is a grave problem with the rules of engagement when the U.S. military on the ground is being denied support, especially considering the boots on the ground know the situation and are still being denied support.
For the fourth time:
The new directive specifically states that if a unit cannot safely disengage, then they can use fire support against civilian locations.
(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/09/did-roe-in-astan-lead-to-marine-deaths.html
The new ROE do not deny our troops support. Whoever says that is wrong or a liar.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #64
I’d be the last guy to defend Obama, but the increase in casualties is from McCrystal’s new strategy. Which like Patreus’s in Iraq, lead to increased US casualties but ultimately was better and lead to winning. Naturally when you spread out your troops and engage the bad guys in COIN, you will get increased casualties in the short term,but its necessary if you want to win.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:25 pm | #65
Joanne
October 27th, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #57
You are one evil dude, and you can say what you will and lie about those who disagree with you, but the facts don’t change.
Yes, I know. I’m evil incarnate because I disagree with you. That makes me evil, and liberal, a liar, etc. However, I’m not the one lying about how the new ROE in Afghanistan are getting our troops killed.
I’m also not posting on Canadian blogs, telling Canadians how to run their country and making determinations that this or that Canadian is a patriot or a traitor, or a true conservative or an evil liberal, etc.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:26 pm | #66
Solaratov – you are so cruel. I only know that information was posted, and I have never made any reference to this information in any comment I have made on this blog. I have no idea if the information is true or not, and I do not care. I have no idea whether this person would be referenced to be a stalker; I must be out of the loop. It is highly unlikely that someone who would be stalking the person in question would not be able to identify that person in question, so please do not put this on me. I was only making my comments to the person as I’ve always referenced him. He’s had a few handles on here already – perhaps he should make it difficult to recognize him. In the future, I will not state his name.
Thanks for sticking up for me on the ‘liar’ issue…..fat chance on that; you would rather berate me for something totally out of my control. Next time, ask Jim to post a thread not to reference the person in question by his name.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #67
Doc Merlin
October 27th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #64
I’d be the last guy to defend Obama, but the increase in casualties is from McCrystal’s new strategy.
Well, you believe in truth, which makes you an honest person. We need more honesty now and less spin.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:35 pm | #68
I don’t normally get into the mish mash of protagonists on these threads but I must say that Joanne’s behavior is less than honorable re …, as well as abhorrant. I agree that should this continue, Joanne should be banned.
And I still don’t like the change with the ROE.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:36 pm | #69
++
ps: Solaratov @ 10:06 pm #58
would Hypogean putting words in my mouth be considered a “cowardly act”??
i purposely did not add the time or number of Hypogean’s posts in my reply so Hypogean couldn’t put words in my mouth, yet Hypogean did it with relish.. “cowardly act” indeed, not to mention you’re mentioning birthers & Craig as well.. need a break from the thugs, go gather some trolls to slay..
and the casualties from the change in rules of
engagement in Iraq were Bush’s fault, but the
change in Afghanistan are (fitb) fault, got it..
oh yeah, and the “dithering” is Bush’s fault
too, just ask Obama, oh wait, ask (fitb)..
parting shot: opinions facts do not make..
==
October 27th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #70
Well, Hypoman, I actually care about the American troops and considering I have a couple relatives in the game, not to mention the Canadian troops who I also dearly love, I will make known my position whether you like it or not. Bite me.
You can continue to personally attack me, but what matters is what happens on the ground, and when troops are not being supported because commanders are citing ‘new rules’ that are preventing them from doing so, then there is a miscommunication that needs rectifying…..or perhaps they didn’t get the memo.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:47 pm | #71
“I’d be the last guy to defend Obama, but the increase in casualties is from McCrystal’s new strategy.” by Doc Merlin
So if McCrystal is in charge, then why hasn’t he ordered in more troops? How come Obama is being blamed for taking his sweet time trying to make a decision about whether sending in more troops will be part of his strategy.
Hypoman likes your comment though because well, Hypoman doesn’t want Obama to be blamed for something he doesn’t have any say in……..being facetious.
Sorry Doc, I’m not trying to be rude, but if it doesn’t fly by Obama, it doesn’t fly.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:49 pm | #72
We’ve had these discussions before. Can’t remember just when but it was after an incident where our soldiers were lured into an ambush. The enemy was hiding, as cowards do, amongst the civilian population. Our soldiers were repeatedly asking for support but none was forthcoming leaving them trapped and then dead. One of many reasons why I do not support the ROE.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #73
“I don’t normally get into the mish mash of protagonists on these threads but I must say that Joanne’s behavior is less than honorable re …, as well as abhorrant. I agree that should this continue, Joanne should be banned.”
How’s that? I addressed the man by his name, for pete’s sake.
Hypoman can call me a liar, but that is okay with you. Nice. I suspect you are a member of his posse.
It really is much more congenial here when the person in question isn’t on the attack, with his posse in tow. Personally, I like to read different opinions, but hey that is just me.
October 27th, 2009 | 11:04 pm | #74
Joanne, there’s no doubt that obama had *some* input on the new ROE. But I seriously doubt that it was to any greater extent than, “Can’t we somehow avoid so many civilian casualties?”
But Gen. McChrystal wrote the final draft of the rules. The problem comes as each succeeding command layer on the way down to the men in the fight, adds their own little touch to the rules. Sometimes to cover some contingency in their area. Sometimes to cover their own butts. (Ticket-punchers try to avoid anything that they feel might have an “adverse” effect on their career – and they feel civilian deaths fall under that.) There are also instances of officers who – being incompetent – can’t even read a map, and won’t believe that a unit is actually a half-mile from a village (yes. that happens.), and so they deny artillary or air support.
I’ll blame obama for almost anything – and God knows, there’s enough – but until I find out for sure that the ROE and the interpretation thereof came down from him, I’m not going to put this one on him.
Hopefully, Gen. McChrystal has corrected the problems connected with the new ROE and “advised” the ticket-punchers and incompetents of their proper interpretation.
October 27th, 2009 | 11:05 pm | #75
You deliberately used his name knowing he has a stalker and that cannot be tolerated. You have been posting here long enough to know better.
October 27th, 2009 | 11:12 pm | #76
Sorry, but you will never get me to agree that denying our troops artillary or air support is acceptable in battle. The enemy deliberately places themselves with civilians because they are well aware of the ROE. Remember the Taliban scum wearing women’s clothing and hiding amongst the women?
And I don’t agree that one civilian life is more important than our soldiers’.
October 27th, 2009 | 11:38 pm | #77
Sasja, of course denying support to troops is wrong, and no one thinks that it’s acceptable.
However, one of the main precepts of COIN is that the civilian population must be won over to our side – and that means that we can’t just go shelling or bombing a village full of civilians; even when they’re being used as human shields. If necessary and possible, men have to go into the town and dig out each of the terrs the old, down and dirty way.
Look at the measures that the IDF took in Gaza during Cast Lead. Just extrordinary – and they didn’t lose but 13 men (KIA) during the whole operation. (For all the good it did them. The arabs certainly don’t seem to appreciate not being wiped out wholesale.)
Well, we may have to take the same extrordinary measures to make a COIN op work in A-stan.
(One reason you may be blaming obama for the ROE is due to his concern with the “rights” of the terrs on the battlefield, and his [and his cabal's] tendency to look at the war as a “law enforcement” problem rather than a real war against a determined enemy who wants to destroy us. You’ll note, however, that the number of captured terrs has gone down while the number of killed has gone up. Dead terrs don’t need a miranda warning.) (That would be “The Law of Unintended Consequences” in action.) 8>)
October 28th, 2009 | 12:47 am | #78
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by conservatweet, Paul Alyunov. Paul Alyunov said: Grim Milestone: October Deadliest Month in Afghanistan… Fatalities Triple Under Obama: As President Obama.. http://bit.ly/17bV4l [...]
October 28th, 2009 | 12:52 am | #79
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Barry, Warren Jarog and Right, Jim Hoft. Jim Hoft said: Grim Milestone: October Deadliest Month in Afghanistan… Fatalities Triple Under Obama http://bit.ly/4jmAEn [...]
October 28th, 2009 | 1:37 am | #80
bg said:
“would Hypogean putting words in my mouth be considered a ‘cowardly act’??”
Yes, that’s what you usually fall back on when you’re proven wrong.
I’m taking issue with Joanne’s lies about Afghanistan. This isn’t about you, or your mouth, or any other part of you, okay?
October 28th, 2009 | 1:41 am | #81
Sasja said:
“Sorry, but you will never get me to agree that denying our troops artillary or air support is acceptable in battle.”
That’s not what the ROE say. Here’s what the ROE say:
“The new directive specifically states that if a unit cannot safely disengage, then they can use fire support against civilian locations.
“(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.”
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/09/did-roe-in-astan-lead-to-marine-deaths.html
The ROE themselves say that they are not to be used to prevent our troops from defending their lives. What happened here was a mistaken interpretation of policy, not policy. When people tell you that it’s policy, they’re either wrong or lying.
October 28th, 2009 | 1:43 am | #82
Joanne said:
“It really is much more congenial here when the person in question isn’t on the attack, with his posse in tow.”
Is it a posse now? I thought it was a fan club.
Sorry I can’t be congenial to people who spread lies and try to undermine our faith in our armed forces.
October 28th, 2009 | 1:46 am | #83
Joanne said:
“Well, Hypoman, I actually care about the American troops and considering I have a couple relatives in the game, not to mention the Canadian troops who I also dearly love, I will make known my position whether you like it or not.”
And yet you’re complaining about me making my opinions known. Tell you what: You post, and I’ll post. How’s that? And when you lie, I’ll call you on it.
October 28th, 2009 | 5:08 am | #84
What we are seeing here is a series of individual events mashed together to act as one, But each event is separate in its agenda.
1. the DEA is there training up locals to be the Afghan version of the DEA. Their agenda is to cut the opium supply. (good luck on that!)
2. The soldiers are trying to take territory to deny land to the Taliban before the winter break.
3. The US is caught in mid stroke by Obama’s apparent mid-course change in direction which did lead to soldiers getting killed because of a bad ROE. (Liberals don’t care about getting our people killed.)
4. The change in administrations, especially to one like Obama’s has given the Taliban and AQ great hope. With this hope comes the boldness of all guerrilla warriors, if they can make enough of a splash, they can affect Obama’s plans. This is a lesson we learned in Vietnam and should be immune to it. But the liberal left cannot or will not learn it or apply it.
5. Afghanistan can be conquered, and has been contrary to popular belief. What cannot be done is to educate the people in a new way of life in a year or ten. It will take a generation to re-educate the people to make them understand there is a whole world beyond the mid-ninth century tribalism they know and love.
We are fighting the adults for the minds of their children and their children’s children. My buddy just got back and said this;
“The smartest ones get out. The other smart ones who supported the Russians left when they did. What is left behind are the entrenched, not so smart, tribal members. They like being in the tribe and all the limitations it brings. But the kids they have are pretty smart and those are the ones we need to save and change. We have to convince the new smart ones to stay and rebuild their own country. No small feat.”
Obama and his crew are not the ones to do this, they have no love beyond the love for themselves and their own petty worldview. For that I apologize to the Afghans who do believe, and the men and women of our armed forces who died and are going to die while our version of Nero fiddles….
October 28th, 2009 | 6:43 am | #85
Hypo,
You are exactly correct to call out Joanne. There is nothing worse than spreading propoganda during military conflicts for partisan reasons. And Gateway, this is not a good post of yours. Now if Obama doesn’t follow McChrystal’s orders, then it is fair game. And thank you also to the Canadian gentleman whose son is serving. I have nothing but the best experiences with Candian soldiers. Their country is right to be proud of them.
October 28th, 2009 | 6:46 am | #86
[...] October Deadliest Month In Afghanistan… Fatalities Triple Under Obama [...]
October 28th, 2009 | 7:55 am | #87
The immaturity on this thread is staggering.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:22 am | #88
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/10/fallen_marines_father_rips_gen.html
http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/
“Admiral Mullen said in a letter to Senators Collins and Snowe (meant for me) that the ROE had not in fact changed with the ISAF Commander back in June 2009; The Rules of Engagement had only been ‘clarified’. Ganjgal is but one example of how that ‘clarification’ is being brought into question. The current investigation, if not buried by the Army, ISAF, SecDef or higher, is going to yield what we already know; that the rules are intentionally vague to offer maximum cover for those who have implemented them while exposing the decision makers on the ground and all at the expense of those prosecuting the war, O-5 and below. It is already painfully obvious to all, especially those on the ground, that before June we were blowing crap up and providing Air and Arty when needed and now; American lives are inferior to Afghan by our own rules and the UN has prosecutors in Kabul, gleaning after-action-reports looking for evidence they can use to prosecute Marines and Soldiers.
What General McChrystal, Sec Def Gates and President Obama need to remember is that they are sworn by oath to defend this country and our people – not protect the civilian population of another country or rebuild their country with our tax dollars and the blood of our children!”
Amen.
Hypoman, why don’t you go to this man’s blog, a 26 year veteran whose son was killed in action, and tell him that he knows nothing about the ROE or who implemented them. Then get back to me about whether or not I am the liar here.
And another thing, you post and I’ll post, and when you lie about me lieing, I’ll call you on it.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:56 am | #89
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19075680/COMISAF-COIN-GUIDANCE
ISAF Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance
Protecting the People is the Mission
October 28th, 2009 | 10:59 am | #90
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/SNAA-7VC7RL?OpenDocument
“ISAF commander issues counterinsurgency guidance
Source: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
Date: 27 Aug 2009
Full_Report (pdf* format – 2.3 Mbytes)
KABUL, Afghanistan – The ISAF commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued his counterinsurgency guidance to his forces here Aug. 26th, which provides direction to ISAF conducting counterinsurgency and stability operations in Afghanistan.
“Protecting the people is the mission,” said McChrystal, who explains the conflict in Afghanistan will be won by gaining the support of the population, not by destroying the enemy.
In his guidance, McChrystal directs his forces to change their conventional mindsets and outlines the path to success through earning the trust of the Afghan people, partnering with the Afghan National Security Forces, building governance and accountability, and improving and adapting operations to local conditions.
The counterinsurgency guidance calls for getting Afghans involved as active participants in the success of their communities, and continues ISAF’s focus on protecting civilians and operating in a manner that is respectful and mindful of Afghan culture.”
October 28th, 2009 | 11:02 am | #91
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/SNAA-7VC7RL-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf
Full Report with signatures and all – the same as #89.
October 28th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #92
YYYYYEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAWWWW!!!!!
A Six-Gun Neo-Con, riding into the OK Gateway Pundit Corral, guns a blazin. I am looking for an Obama boot liking varmint that likes to go by the name of Hypogean. According to my good friend William Webster, hypogean (lower case) lives in caves and holes in the ground. Now I can only imagine what kind of varmint Hypogean is because in most parts skunks, armadillos, snakes and other vermin live in holes in the ground. But according to my buddy Webster, hypogeans are ugly little creatures, never allowing to be exposed to the light, they lose any attractive features and don’t really understand what is going on out in the world out side their little holes.
HYPOGEAN! Pokey your little nostrils up enough to let us know what kind of a varmint you really are!
Look, I am going to draw him out with the following link to some Gringo Music:
Senorita Mas Fina
By the way, yawl seen any rabid Obama boot liking Chavez Venezualans around these parts?
October 28th, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #93
++
[Solaratov @ 10:06 pm #58
Joanne @ 9:50 pm #54
[..] You know that Tom W. has a stalker, yet you continue to try to identify him – thereby endangering his life and that of his family – for your own crude, common purposes.]
first off.. Tom W’s supposed “stalker” knows where he lives (gave us his address), his phone number (gave us that too), his family (also named them), etc..
and Joanne is exposing him to danger via exposing
TW is Hypogean (not to mention all too obviously)??
GMAFB!!
ID-iots!!
==
October 28th, 2009 | 12:33 pm | #94
++
Joanne
October 28th, 2009 | 10:59 am | #90
and the POTUS paying the Taliban..
good luck with that, A-stan is not Iraq..
and for all intent & purpose, the Taliban are not insurgents,
MIGHT AS WELL PAY AQ TO SWITCH SIDES.. duh!!
and with that, i say might as well bring them home, as we’ll be fighting them over here soon enough thanks to the redistribution of US taxpayer dollars to our self declared enemy..
==
October 28th, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #95
RG, i see you don’t read here too often…..Hypo is the last thing in the world of a “Obama Boot-licker”. He is a man who lays out honest arguments. I have disagreed with him many times, but have never once doubted his motives or that he is rationale, knowledgeable and has the best interest of the American Military at heart.
- so joanne you quote one Marine’s father and that proves Hypo is wrong? Should I quote Cindi Sheehan about the Iraq War? Intelligent men disagree about whats best. Protecting civilians has always been a priority of the US military because it is just and decent.
November 10th, 2009 | 1:28 am | #96
[...] Grim Milestone: October Deadliest Month in Afghanistan… Fatalities Triple Under Obama [...]
November 11th, 2009 | 3:13 am | #97
[...] [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #98
[...] fatalities in Afghanistan have tripled under Barack [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact