I didn't plow through all the posts, so at the risk of being repetitive, for me it's not so much that Obama embarrassed himself by personally getting involved in this fiasco. It's the fact that he did so while generals are on a battlefield waiting to hear HIS strategy. Whether or not he talks to the generals directly or through the SECDEF isn't important. The important thing is that combat commanders had to wait for Obama to make a PR splash before they could hear from him what his plan for winning the war in Afghanistan. And even so, as far as I know, he still hasn't articulated his strategy yet.
Ever hear of Vietnam? If not, sit back and watch: we're repeating the same fucking mistakes again!
I was in Somalia in 93'.
I saw the changes Clinton made there that caused Blackhawk Down.
Half measures and Rules of Engagement that kept us from being successful.
It seems that Democrats are always trying to be nice to our enemies and put on this harmless front while they're leaving our troops in harms way.
When something happens that shows this policy is a mistake they pull us out.
I think Obama is waiting for some huge event where hundreds of our troops are killed so he can pull out.
He has no intention on succeeding.
Just to be fair, Clinton and the Democrats weren't the only ones to come up with ridiculous ROE. Same things happened in Beirut during the Reagan administration leading up to the barracks bombing. For example, in 1983, Marines could not load their weapons if assigned to "low risk posts." This was done primarily as a safety issue so that Marines wouldn't have any accidental discharges of their weapons. Well, problem is that the barracks, by definition, was considered a "low risk post." Conversely, the ROE in Bosnia, at least during the first year, were pretty reasonable. If I thought my life was threatened, I had the right to defend myself with deadly force. I didn't have to ask for permission; I didn't have to wait until fired upon; if it looked like the other guy was even thinking about it, I was authorized to act.
I'm not trying to defend the Obama administration nor the Clinton administration. I think this goes beyond partisan politics and has more to do with how squeamish the American people are across the board when it comes to combat. Remember the Highway of Death in Desert Storm? The decision to engage the fleeing Iraqi forces was the right thing to do. What Americans don't understand is that when you decide to engage the enemy, you're not out to make it fair or to give him a chance to fight back: you destroy the enemy with total and complete brutality. That's what we did in 1991. But once the American public saw the images of burnt out civilian vehicles that the Iraqi troops had commandeered to get out of Kuwait, it got pretty squeamish pretty quickly.
It's things like this that politically drive how ROE are defined. We don't want to appear brutal. But war is brutal. The one who is the most ruthless wins. It's been that way ever since the first caveman picked up a rock and bashed the brains out of his enemy.
When it comes to ROE, we're pretty bi-partisan at being wimpy about it.
Never let politics interfere with military tactics.
That is a constant. Congress has oversight over the Pentagon. They help set the rules of engagement.
Why are terrorists effective? Because people are terrified of them.
Terrorists love to go for soft targets. They're basically cowards.
If you show them that killing our people will result in terrible concequences they tend to have second thoughts.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of the Highway of Death. I used to drive around the craters that we put in that road. We not only killed Iraqis but we also killed Jordanian truckers transporting stolen Kuwaiti property up that road to Bagdad.
A brutal act I'm sure Obama and the Dems would be wailing about.
Last edited: