Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before. Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command. They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.” They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win. Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:
“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”
In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:
Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST
MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.
Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.
“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.
If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.
What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.
“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”
That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement. The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:
Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions
By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010
QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.
Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.
The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.
“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”
And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).
We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war. Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.
For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II. We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies. If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.
Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.
But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.
Fighting a War without Bullets?
by Chris Carter
Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.
American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.
When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.
The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.
In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.
Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.
And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.
Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT
U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.
The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.
“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”
Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.
It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.
We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.
And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.
About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.
And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base. The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:
McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”
Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”
McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”
Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”
Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there. Are we going to stay and fight? Or cut and run? Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011. Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.” All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.
All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs. The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.
Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???
If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.
We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight. And not until then.
If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has. Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.