Obama is directly responsible for Hundreds of American Deaths and Injuries.

[OriginalShroom]

We all know that the President, Obama in this case, is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

He is ultimately responsible for the tactics used by the Military and the rules they have to fight under.

There is no getting around this.

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times

The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations.

Mr. Karzai now is refusing to sign a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops to remain in his country after 2014, even though Mr. Obama personally pledged to him in a letter that Afghan homes would be mostly off-limits to ground forces.

Even before the president’s edict, commanders since 2009 had to insure that a Taliban fighter was carrying a weapon before they could authorize direct fire. A unit engaged in combat on the ground and requesting airstrikes must convince commanders — and lawyers — back at headquarters that no civilians would be harmed.

Yes, there is no doubt about it. Obama is directly responsible for the deaths and injuries to hundreds of American Soldiers.

 

[HenryBHough]

We all know that the President, Obama in this case, is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

He is ultimately responsible for the tactics used by the Military and the rules they have to fight under.


Yes, there is no doubt about it. Obama is directly responsible for the deaths and injuries to hundreds of American Soldiers.

OK, but think how much worse His unemployment problem would be had all those folks not been killed!

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

lets just wait and see how many "Legal Tax Paying Americans" die when they can't find a specialist in 2014.

 

[JimH52]

Let's talk Iraq for a while......

 

[Sunshine]

Let's talk Iraq for a while......

Start a thread about it.

 

[Sunshine]

We all know that the President, Obama in this case, is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

He is ultimately responsible for the tactics used by the Military and the rules they have to fight under.

There is no getting around this.

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times

The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations.

Mr. Karzai now is refusing to sign a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops to remain in his country after 2014, even though Mr. Obama personally pledged to him in a letter that Afghan homes would be mostly off-limits to ground forces.

Even before the president’s edict, commanders since 2009 had to insure that a Taliban fighter was carrying a weapon before they could authorize direct fire. A unit engaged in combat on the ground and requesting airstrikes must convince commanders — and lawyers — back at headquarters that no civilians would be harmed.

Yes, there is no doubt about it. Obama is directly responsible for the deaths and injuries to hundreds of American Soldiers.

No surprise. Obama is going to take care of his muslim cronies.

 

[RightDown]

Another impeachable offense. Right up there with the crime against humanity known as Ben Gazzara. Benghazi? I don't know. Same difference.

I honestly believe you rightwingers need a quick dose of perspective and proportion..among other things.

 

[Vox]

He definitely is. because only an idiot would restrict the rules of engagement to endanger OWN troops in order to spare the enemy.

Or the scumbag muslim sympathizer as obama clearly is.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

when anyone died during the Bush years, the left wanted heads to roll.