“We were attacked treacherously. We came under fire from everywhere, but the rules of engagement prevent me from doing my job.”
The utterly wrongheaded policy that has American troops in Afghanistan devoting the bulk of their time to hearts-and-minds initiatives and to behaving like social workers is…killing American troops. When America pretends to have no enemies, its enemies do not fall into line and behave accordingly. And yet Americans are not allowed to fight back.
There should be a full-scale investigation of this in Washington. But there won’t be, because most pols on both sides of the aisle still assume that it would be terrible to stop trying to be buddies to the Afghans and to fight a traditional war. They think we can actually win, i.e., create a stable and secure Afghanistan, by not fighting. Their naivete is probably incurable.
US Marine: “The Rules of Engagement Prevent Me From Doing My Job”
Someday, civilian and military leaders responsible for these rules of engagement, this policy of sacrificing American troops to make the barbarians of Afghanistan “like us” should come before at the very least a Congressional hearing, but at this point an out-for-blood people’s tribunal seems more appropriate. What they are doing to our military, our treasury, our power and our prestige is an unconscionable national betrayal.
The following news story describes the toll these rules, this policy is taking on our bravest young men — amoebas in a petri dish to the mad, see-no-Islam social engineers masquerading as American statesmen and generals.
From the Telegraph:
On a base near Marjah, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand province, Marines are grieving the deaths of a sergeant and corporal killed by the remote-controlled bombs that have become the scourge of the long-running conflict.
Commanders try to keep the men’s rage in check, aware that winning over an Afghan public wary of the foreign military presence and furious about civilian casualties is as important as battlefield success.
“It causes a lot of frustration. My men want revenge – that is only natural,” says First Lieutenant Aaron MacLean, 2nd Platoon commander of the 1st Battalion, 6th Regiment Charlie company.
This is what happens when you send in the Marines but your policy is Pure Peace Corps.
“But I keep telling them that the rules are the rules for a reason. If we simply go crazy and start shooting at everything, in the long run we will lose this war because we will lose the support of the population.”
Earth to 1st Looey: You don’t have the support of the population, and you aren’t going to “win” it. You will serve it, “protect” it, coddle it, bribe it and sacrifice the blood of your men to appease this population — a no-win, perpetual work in progress that more closely resembles dhimmi servitude than military action.
“They know we can’t shoot them if they don’t carry guns or without positive identification.Â They are fighting us at another level now,” MacLean said.“They know we can’t shoot them if they don’t carry guns or without positive identification. They are fighting us at another level now,” MacLean said.
MacLean recently led his unit on a routine foot patrol near Marjah, which is expected to be the scene of a major offensive this month.
What the Marines encountered was a likely precursor of the battle to come.
They were met by fierce gunfire from Taliban gunmen who pinned them down for three hours at the expense of two of their men.
One corporal stepped on an improvised explosive device (IED). Military intelligence officials say that it is possible that 90 per cent of foreign soldiers’ lives are currently being lost in this way.
The corporal’s legs were blown off and he was thrown metres into the air.
The whole of Afghanistan (and you can throw in Iraq) aren’t worth those two legs. Certainly not this …
A second IED killed a sergeant who rushed to the corporal’s aid as bullets flew everywhere, MacLean said.
Three others were wounded in the clash, making it one of the bloodiest days for US Marines since President Barack Obama’s announcement in December of a fresh troop surge in the war to eradicate the Taliban.
The death toll of foreign soldiers fighting in Afghanistan under US and Nato command reached 44 in January – the most in a month since the war began more than eight years ago.In January 2009 the figure was 25.
The number of Americans who died last month in the conflict now in its ninth year was almost double the number for January last year, at 29 compared with 15, according to the icasualties.org website, which keeps a running tally.
The US and Nato currently deploy 113,000 troops in Afghanistan, with another 40,000 due this year as part of a renewed strategy that emphasises development and the “reconciliation” of Taliban fighters.
Most of the incoming troops will be deployed in Helmand, which along with neighbouring Kandahar province has been the hub of the insurgency since the Taliban regime was removed from power in late 2001.
MacLean’s unit contains some of the first Marinesto be sent into Helmand since the surge was announced.
On the day of the ambush, Marines hunkered down in tents inside the camp as information about the encounter came in.
Some had tears in their eyes as the names of casualties were made known. Others held tightly to their weapons and yelled at their enemy on the horizon.
The rules of engagement prevent him from doing his job — under attack in the midst of an ambush that lasted several hours in which two men were grievously wounded and killed. The people behind this order, this whole heinous policy should be summoned to testify in Congress today.
Outside a tent housing the Marines’ unit responsible for firing mortars stands an improvised cross bearing the inscription: “Here lies the 81st, death by stand down.”
Last year was the worst yet for foreign troops fighting in Afghanistan, with 520 soldiers dead, up from 295 in 2008. More troops will mean more casualties, military experts say.
For the Afghans too 2009 was the deadliest, with the UN putting civilian deaths at 2,412 for the year, compared to 2,118 in 2008.
While most are caused by the Taliban, the insurgents exploit civilian casualties to spread distrust among the public for foreign and Afghan troops.
Bogus, bogus, bogus. To quote the unlamented GWB: You’re either with us, or you’re against us. Period.
As the nature of the fight has changed, with the Taliban increasingly using suicide attacks and IEDs, there had been no traditional winter hiatus and General Zahir Azimi, a defence ministry spokesman, said that spring is likely to be ferocious.
“We will have the most intense clashes come the spring, and will shed the most blood this year,” he said.
Hugh Fitzgerald comments:
Understand exactly what is going on here. American soldiers and Marines are being killed, and wounded, unnecessarily, because they are not being allowed, by their soi-disant “superiors,” to take the kind of measures that, in other conflicts, would always have been allowed. They are expected to show trust for those they cannot possibly trust (and they have to “show trust” by endangering themselves), they are not allowed to fire if there are civilians nearby (and the locals have made sure that there will always and everywhere be civilians nearby), they are not even allowed to fire on those who they know have just fired on them, but suddenly drop their weapons and stand out, secure in the knowledge that the Americans will do nothing.
Are the generals at the top, are the civilians, well-pleased with themselves for this mad policy? They don’t pay the piper, of course. They keep telling themselves that hearts and minds, unwinnable in the end because of Islam, can indeed be won. They can’t. At most they can be temporarily rented, with the prospect, at any point, of changing sides, or reverting to full-bodied, full-bloodied Islam.
This sacrificing of officers and men is akin to the unnecesasary deaths caused by foolish commanders in World War I, in the trenches, with their crazed commands to “take” this or that enemy acreage across minefields, or still more, akin in the folly to that miserable commander of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War, the one who ordered an idiotic attack — an attack immortalized by Tennyson in his famous poem.
But this business of “theirs not to reason why” won’t be accepted today. Today, the men and women in Afghanistan, and their families at whom, have a perfect right to understand that the failure to grasp the nature of Islam, the failure to construct a Grand Strategy — that is, one that deals with all the various threats from the adherents of Islam, emanating from the Camp of Islam — based on a failure to come to grips with Islam itself however unpleasant the truths that will come out, and the need to deal with things in a quite different way (which also means that many now in power will have to recognize how wrong they have been, and many do not wish to do that, do not wish to look in the mirror and see that egg on their faces)– means greater danger, and greater sacrifices, for Infidel troops in Afghanistan, as in Iraq before it, and after it — Yemen, Somalia, the streets of major capitals in Europe, who knows?