Why our military is better off under Trump then under Obama...

[healthmyths]

and therefore why our country and we Americans are safer!
Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage
President George W. Bush spoke with his military commander in Iraq nearly every week.

President Barack Obama was so deeply involved in military operations that his first three Defense secretaries all complained, sometimes bitterly, about what they considered White House micromanagement.

In nearly five months in office, President Donald Trump has yet to meet or speak with either his Iraq or Afghanistan commander, even as his administration weighs deeper and longer-term involvement in both conflicts and asks Congress for a vast increase in defense spending.

Senior Pentagon officials and military officers who often chafed under Obama's centralized decision-making have welcomed the shift, saying it has freed them to carry out operations based on military, and not political, considerations.

But it also raises concerns that Trump has given too much latitude to the Pentagon, which already has been accused of more indiscriminate bombings than in the past, causing an increase in civilian casualties.

"The idea of the 10,000-mile screwdriver from Washington making decisions for a field commander, as has been the case over the past decade, is flawed," said James Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as NATO supreme commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage | Military.com

 

[nat4900]

and therefore why our country and we Americans are safer!
Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage
President George W. Bush spoke with his military commander in Iraq nearly every week.

President Barack Obama was so deeply involved in military operations that his first three Defense secretaries all complained, sometimes bitterly, about what they considered White House micromanagement.

In nearly five months in office, President Donald Trump has yet to meet or speak with either his Iraq or Afghanistan commander, even as his administration weighs deeper and longer-term involvement in both conflicts and asks Congress for a vast increase in defense spending.

Senior Pentagon officials and military officers who often chafed under Obama's centralized decision-making have welcomed the shift, saying it has freed them to carry out operations based on military, and not political, considerations.

But it also raises concerns that Trump has given too much latitude to the Pentagon, which already has been accused of more indiscriminate bombings than in the past, causing an increase in civilian casualties.

"The idea of the 10,000-mile screwdriver from Washington making decisions for a field commander, as has been the case over the past decade, is flawed," said James Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as NATO supreme commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage | Military.com

Donald Trump I know more than the generals on ISIS - YouTube

 

[healthmyths]

and therefore why our country and we Americans are safer!
Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage
President George W. Bush spoke with his military commander in Iraq nearly every week.

President Barack Obama was so deeply involved in military operations that his first three Defense secretaries all complained, sometimes bitterly, about what they considered White House micromanagement.

In nearly five months in office, President Donald Trump has yet to meet or speak with either his Iraq or Afghanistan commander, even as his administration weighs deeper and longer-term involvement in both conflicts and asks Congress for a vast increase in defense spending.

Senior Pentagon officials and military officers who often chafed under Obama's centralized decision-making have welcomed the shift, saying it has freed them to carry out operations based on military, and not political, considerations.

But it also raises concerns that Trump has given too much latitude to the Pentagon, which already has been accused of more indiscriminate bombings than in the past, causing an increase in civilian casualties.

"The idea of the 10,000-mile screwdriver from Washington making decisions for a field commander, as has been the case over the past decade, is flawed," said James Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as NATO supreme commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage | Military.com

Donald Trump I know more than the generals on ISIS - YouTube

And HE did at the time when Obama's generals were being micromanaged by Obama!
That was the point! Those generals were simply obeying Obama's orders which like the below were totally politically driven, not military driven.

GEEZ here is what a simple soldier once said about "micromanagement" of the war:
The Obama administration process frustrated many in the military.
Now for a perfect example of one of the many many onerous ROEs...
A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

REMEMBER I'm not saying this nor is Trump!

 

[healthmyths]

Mattis reveals new rules of engagement

However, there were signs that changes to those rules of engagement were coming. In his Aug. 21 speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy, President Donald Trump said he would ”lift restrictions and expand authorities” for war fighters.

“You see some of the results of releasing our military from, for example, a proximity requirement — how close was the enemy to the Afghan or the U.S.-advised special forces?” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in the morning.

“That is no longer the case, for example. So these kind of restrictions that did not allow us to employ the air power fully have been removed, yes.”

“We are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces,” Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee in the afternoon. “It used to be we have to basically be in contact with that enemy.”

“If they are in an assembly area, a training camp, we know they are an enemy and they are going to threaten the Afghan government or our people, [Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan] has the wherewithal to make that decision,” he added.

“Wherever we find them, anyone who is trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan government, then we can go after them,” Mattis said.
Asked to expand on that, Mattis described the change as “now being able to bring this fire support to bear where we could not [before], whether it be for proximity or [because] we were not with those units.”

Previously, U.S. forces were only working alongside Afghans at the highest headquarters level, Dunford said, not down at the brigade or battalion level where the “decisive action” is occurring. That is important because U.S. air support requires U.S. advisers to call it in.

Air power “wasn’t being delivered to those Afghan units most relevant in the fight because we didn’t [previously] have the authority to put advisers down in that level of the fight,” Dunford added. “That has, and it will, make us more effective.”

However, the secretary was quick to stress that the U.S. would still do everything “humanly possible” to avoid civilian deaths, especially given the history of groups like the Taliban and the Islamic State group hiding among civilian populations.

Mattis reveals new rules of engagement

 

[healthmyths]

All of the above military freedom is due to Trump NOT concerned with "political correctness" but what will be most effective!

How many times were US troops killed because idiots back in Washington were running the battles...not the soldiers in the battle!

How can Obama do that when HE KNOWS his orders got the Marines killed!
Here is why.. Obama's NEW rules of engagements did the following:

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."

mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/08/75036/were-pinned-down-4usmarines.html#ixzz1YLqkHGN3

 

[pismoe]

thanks for the articles and for posting them . Its my opinion that the President is doing a good job . Both 'gwb' and 'mrobama' were the same types and its time to really discredit both as well as 'hilary' HMyths .

 

[jillian]

and therefore why our country and we Americans are safer!
Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage
President George W. Bush spoke with his military commander in Iraq nearly every week.

President Barack Obama was so deeply involved in military operations that his first three Defense secretaries all complained, sometimes bitterly, about what they considered White House micromanagement.

In nearly five months in office, President Donald Trump has yet to meet or speak with either his Iraq or Afghanistan commander, even as his administration weighs deeper and longer-term involvement in both conflicts and asks Congress for a vast increase in defense spending.

Senior Pentagon officials and military officers who often chafed under Obama's centralized decision-making have welcomed the shift, saying it has freed them to carry out operations based on military, and not political, considerations.

But it also raises concerns that Trump has given too much latitude to the Pentagon, which already has been accused of more indiscriminate bombings than in the past, causing an increase in civilian casualties.

"The idea of the 10,000-mile screwdriver from Washington making decisions for a field commander, as has been the case over the past decade, is flawed," said James Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as NATO supreme commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Compared to George W. Bush and Obama, Trump Doesn't Micromanage | Military.com

they are spread too thin under the orange sociopath. his disembowling of the state department endangers the troops further.

as usual, paid shill, you're a lunatic spreading lies and propaganda.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
-- Voltaire​

Whether the military is better or worse off with Trump as the CiC is markedly less important than whether America, and to an extent the rest of the world, is better off with Trump as the CiC of the American military.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
-- Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow​

 

[BluesLegend]

Under Obama our troops could only fire back AFTER the enemy shot an RPG at them and blew up half the squad. From a disabled vet who was blown half to bits over there under Obama's retarded rules of engagement.

 

[Rocko]

Hussein was an arrogant, moronic control freak

 

[pismoe]

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
-- Voltaire​

Whether the military is better or worse off with Trump as the CiC is markedly less important than whether America, and to an extent the rest of the world, is better off with Trump as the CiC of the American military.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
-- Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow​

------------------------------------------------------- feck YOU fureigners Xelor !!