E90Post
 


Extreme Power House
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion > Obama's Rules of Engagement Kills 4 Marines



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-19-2009, 06:31 AM   #1
Septro
Banned
 
Drives: '08 e90 335xi
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: C-Bus, OH

Posts: 1,649
iTrader: (1)

Obama's Rules of Engagement Kills 4 Marines

"We're Pinned Down"

Waiting for CAS (Close Air Support) or direct fire from artillery for over 80 minutes while under an intense Ambush in the Ganjgal area of Afghanistan - 3 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman died due to a new set of Rules of Engagement regarding potential civilian casualties implemented by the Obama Administratration that delayed command decisions on providing fire support to repel the ambushers.
Quote:
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 embedded reporter, when provided with a rifle as their fighting position was about to be overrun, stated "I had no hesitation in grabbing that rifle".

This stems from McChrystal's order early this summer regarding deadly force (as relayed by his spokesman RA Smith):
Quote:
"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,"
That's basically what is known amongst the ground-pounders as the "Retreat-rule".. This hyper-sensitive approach to avoiding engaging the enemy if there is any potential civilian(s) around is what lead to the Ganjgal problem of providing timely fire support even though the ambushed Marines clearly stated they were no where near the village when under attack. The soft-glove approach is killing Marines and enabling the Taliban.
Septro is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 12:27 PM   #2
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Unfuckingbelievable.

RIP Marines & Corpsman.
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 02:00 PM   #3
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Maybe obama should go over their and test those new rules before ordering the young men of this country to implement them.

R.I.P.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 06:48 PM   #4
jibaholic101
Brigadier General
 
Drives: women wild
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC

Posts: 3,503
iTrader: (0)

just another reason why i hate obama. can we get a list of the specific new rules of engagement?
__________________
some italian, german, and japanese ones; and on order more of the same
jibaholic101 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 07:01 PM   #5
DaveO
Private First Class
 
Drives: 3 BMWs
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Posts: 182
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to DaveO
Absolutly rediculous. If we have soldiers on the ground in a war, there should be absolutly no 'gloves' on. Soliders should obviously not be allowed to purposely kill civilians or commit war crimes, but short of that there should be no restrictions in a time of war. Noone wins when you make artificial rules, and as someone above said, all it does is help the enemy.

I don't agree with the war on many levels and think we should withdraw all soldiers (combat and non-combat) from the middle east. But as long as they are there, these rules that help the enemy and kill american soldiers are absolutly rediculous and I hope the Sec. Defense is reviewing this incident and going over this with the President.

This sounds like a plan to keep a war going but avoid the bad press of having killed civilians, which sounds good in theory but when the cost is dead American soldiers, forget it. War is hell. Deal with it. If the administration can't deal with that, then they should do the right thing and withdraw the troops. If they do intend to fight, then they must bring the fight 110%.
__________________
2000 BMW M-Coupe Scary to drive, but fun!
2007 BMW M-Roadster Sounds like the old M-Coupe, but a bit more refined and doesn't loose its rear end for no reason
2008 BMW 135i My favorite of my BMWs currently. So far very happy to leave it bone stock.
DaveO is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 08:01 PM   #6
Septro
Banned
 
Drives: '08 e90 335xi
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: C-Bus, OH

Posts: 1,649
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibaholic101 View Post
just another reason why i hate obama. can we get a list of the specific new rules of engagement?
The full ROE is always classified - the grunts on the ground only get a small index card to keep in their pockets or a 1-pager encapsulating the key points of the ROE as well as local command prerogatives/interpretation.
Septro is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-19-2009, 08:33 PM   #7
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

The fault here may not lie with the ROE itself but with confusion concerning it or a lousy command climate where fear of making a decision has taken over.

Having the right ROE in a counter insurgency is vital. GEN McChrystal knows this as well as anyone in the world. The key terrain in this fight is the people.

To me this sounds like there was either confusion as to who had the authority to authorize the fires which is bad enough or the climate in theater is such that senior officers are more afraid to make a decision that will lead to bad press than one that will put Americans in danger. If that is the case, we are in deep, deep trouble.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 02:32 AM   #8
stylinexpat
Captain
 
stylinexpat's Avatar
 
Drives:
Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 807
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
Maybe obama should go over their and test those new rules before ordering the young men of this country to implement them.

R.I.P.
One also needs to remember that one is either considered a guest there or an enemy I doubt the US would ever allow foreign troops to shoot at will in the US.
stylinexpat is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 02:12 PM   #9
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

We've killed a lot of civilians by mistake. We lose more by killing a civilian than we gain by killing the enemy. We aren't fighting a war so much as building a nation. If we accidently kill a mother, her sons, husband, brothers, and father will join the enemy, and the village will support the enemy, and we've made our problem dramatically worse. The rule is there not only for the civilians protection, but our own. It is a leadership decision on which way is best to further our objective. If we were just there to destroy the place and leave, I'd agree that more "gloves off" (within the Laws of Armed Conflict) is the way to go, but we aren't there to just destroy. Obviously, what we've been doing the past 8 years hasn't worked so well. How many troops died under those ROEs, and has it brought us closer to our goal lately, or are we actually moving further away? It is a terrible situation (as war always is), but if protecting our troops lives took precedence over accomplishing the mission, they never would've gone there. It'd be nice if we could've left already and not put any troops in danger.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:17 PM   #10
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylinexpat View Post
One also needs to remember that one is either considered a guest there or an enemy I doubt the US would ever allow foreign troops to shoot at will in the US.
Now that Mr. Obama determines when the U.S. stays or when the U.S. goes, we are considered guests. Before Mr. Obama, we were considered to be occupiers and aggressors. Well, Mr. Obama may be sending more and more forces to Afghanistan. What happened to his promises to bring the troops home?

On another subject, it's been quiet around here since Nixon got banned. I can't say I miss him... at all.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:29 PM   #11
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
We've killed a lot of civilians by mistake. We lose more by killing a civilian than we gain by killing the enemy. We aren't fighting a war so much as building a nation. If we accidently kill a mother, her sons, husband, brothers, and father will join the enemy, and the village will support the enemy, and we've made our problem dramatically worse. The rule is there not only for the civilians protection, but our own. It is a leadership decision on which way is best to further our objective. If we were just there to destroy the place and leave, I'd agree that more "gloves off" (within the Laws of Armed Conflict) is the way to go, but we aren't there to just destroy. Obviously, what we've been doing the past 8 years hasn't worked so well. How many troops died under those ROEs, and has it brought us closer to our goal lately, or are we actually moving further away? It is a terrible situation (as war always is), but if protecting our troops lives took precedence over accomplishing the mission, they never would've gone there. It'd be nice if we could've left already and not put any troops in danger.
Have more U.S. troops in Afghanistan died in these 7 months of Obama, or in the 7 months prior?

I agree that we do not need to slash and burn. But that is reason for us to get out. We should not be getting our military servicepersons killed for nation building. If we must participate in nationbuilding, then perhaps it should be with companies like Blackrock (I think that is the name).

Of course, there is the valid argument that we need to have Afghanistan emerge as an ally. Very well. But at what cost if our military servicepersons cannot defend themselves? Just ridiculous.

How come the party that is in majority power today and was so critical before the election calling for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops as "redeployment" are now in favor of adding more troops? I guess it is all just political crap. Take their political gains and continue the same old policies for the most part. And then the popular press supports the current bunch by not even talking about it, or at least not criticizing the Administration when they do have a little story. It's simply biased reporting at it's worst.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:30 PM   #12
jaiman
Captain
 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 657
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
On another subject, it's been quiet around here since Nixon got banned. I can't say I miss him... at all.
When did Nixon get banned and why? Was it something specific or a culmination?
jaiman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:30 PM   #13
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post

On another subject, it's been quiet around here since Nixon got banned. I can't say I miss him... at all.
I must be living under a rock, because I had no idea Nixon got banned. What did he say that got him 86'd?
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:34 PM   #14
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaiman View Post
When did Nixon get banned and why? Was it something specific or a culmination?
Don't have any information. I only reported him once several weeks ago because he wrote something and put it in a quote box with my name on it. It was probably his points kept adding up to ban. I had just noticed that Banned was under his name on a post I was reading.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:35 PM   #15
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
I must be living under a rock, because I had no idea Nixon got banned. What did he say that got him 86'd?
Read some of his posts. Almost any of them. They concentrated on personal attacks on e90post forums members rather than on debating the subject. It's clearly outlined in forum rules.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 03:53 PM   #16
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

I think most democrats were and are in favor of the war in Afghanistan, and though the resources used in Iraq should've been used there. I'd agree with that.

The troops can't cut off their noses to spite their faces. Sure- they need to be able to defend themselves, but not at the expense of actually GROWING the enemy forces and support. That defeats the entire reason of them being there. It's a crap situation, no doubt. This land has been unoccupiable by foreigners since Alexander the Great. There's an argument to be made for cutting our losses, but what was the point then?

An option I heard recently was just to keep paying the warlords off so long as they don't shelter terrorist camps.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-22-2009, 04:10 PM   #17
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
An option I heard recently was just to keep paying the warlords off so long as they don't shelter terrorist camps.
With the second Jimmy Carter, that should make sense. Carter commited the U.S. to pay billions to Egypt and billions to Israel to keep the peace. You could say it is working, but at our expense. The payments continue. It may be best to break that contract. It has gone on for 30 years!!!
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-23-2009, 02:39 PM   #18
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
With the second Jimmy Carter, that should make sense. Carter commited the U.S. to pay billions to Egypt and billions to Israel to keep the peace. You could say it is working, but at our expense. The payments continue. It may be best to break that contract. It has gone on for 30 years!!!
LOL...it was a conservative pundit who was presenting that option. He said nation building was a poor value and paying the warlords to not harbour terrorists would accomplish the benefits Americans want (no terrorist safe haven) for the lowest cost, rather than waste a bunch of money intended to help the well-being of the average Afghan.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-23-2009, 03:11 PM   #19
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
LOL...it was a conservative pundit who was presenting that option. He said nation building was a poor value and paying the warlords to not harbour terrorists would accomplish the benefits Americans want (no terrorist safe haven) for the lowest cost, rather than waste a bunch of money intended to help the well-being of the average Afghan.
It's a tough situation. How to deal with it is to some degree similar to early America. It used to be that American ships were pirated in the Middle East regularly. To stop the piracy, America paid huge sums of money to the governments to keep the pirates at bay. Eventually, the tribute was the largest share of the national budget. This ended in the U.S. sending warships.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-23-2009, 04:15 PM   #20
bolinp78
G35 convertee
 
bolinp78's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335i (AW)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .

Posts: 1,007
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaiman View Post
When did Nixon get banned and why? Was it something specific or a culmination?
There were definitely several reasons.

disturbed individual if you ask me.. if anything can really be inferred by an online forum.
__________________
bolinp78 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-23-2009, 07:42 PM   #21
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Read some of his posts. Almost any of them. They concentrated on personal attacks on e90post forums members rather than on debating the subject. It's clearly outlined in forum rules.
Oh, I'm familiar with his tone, content and general political views, but that hasn't really changed since he's been here. I was wondering which straw broke the camel's back, as it were.....
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2009, 03:39 PM   #22
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
It's a tough situation. How to deal with it is to some degree similar to early America. It used to be that American ships were pirated in the Middle East regularly. To stop the piracy, America paid huge sums of money to the governments to keep the pirates at bay. Eventually, the tribute was the largest share of the national budget. This ended in the U.S. sending warships.
It wouldn't be tribute. We're not paying off the Taliban here- we'd be hiring their enemies to do a job for us and, so long as they do it, don't care what else happens in Afghanistan. If they don't deliver, I'm sure they'll soon see a Reaper UAV knocking on their roof.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST