A member of ALTADENA GROUP
CSIA Foundation

Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.  The lives of our sons and daughters serving in the military in Afghanistan are thought, by most, to be endangered by violations of 'Rules of Engagement' (ROE).  These ROE were to have been created by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was recently releaved of command, and was then replaced by Gen. David Petraeus.  In fact, Gen McChrystal's senior commanding officer had been Gen. David Petraeus.  Gen. David Petraeus now has the "opportunity to excell" in terms of getting the Rules of Engagement fixed.  Just how quickly will this change come about, if at all?

No doubt my thoughts expressed here to those who have not fought will be unpopular in some circles, but this old Marine believes they need to be said.  And last check I still have freedom of speech.  Quoting General Lewis W. Walt, USMC (one of my favorite Generals) - I know I'm dating myself - "I think the future of our country boils down to this simple proposition:  either we as individual Americans will assume the responsibilities of citizenship or our nation, as the land of the free, will be destroyed (page 98, The Eleventh Hour).  Responsibility includes speaking out, especially when we see that the fate of our nation is involved.  It is good to remember that our individual welfare and fate are NOT separate and distinct from that of our nation.

I grew up at a time when war was considered "hell on earth" and I agree with this well-written article.  I never have followed the concept of "Lets have a war, the worst you can do is break even -- want to play?"  At the top of the news today is the story about, "[...] The media, legislators and some brass [...] scolding McChrystal and calling for his resignation. He’s been humbled, has apologized, but is now bound for a stint in the woodshed."

We are engaged in a war that will likely last for my lifetime and beyond in the Middle East, I'm not always sure for what, but we have no objection if the global Islamist jihadist enemy brings the fight to us through subversion, infiltration, or by some other coalition. 

There are four long forgotten principles of war - old, but still valid -- that I believe must guide our continued efforts at bringing this war to a close.  Sorry, Mr. Obama, it does NOT include a public withdrawal date of our fighting forces now engaged with the enemy.  To do so puts you directly responsible for the ensuing deaths of our loved ones from the time of the announcement.  And yes, you will answer -- if not at the next election -- certainly in the eternities to follow.

General Curtis E. LeMay (USAF) is the source of these valid principles and they are found generally expressed in U.S. News and World Report, October 10, 1966.

First -- War is serious and dangerous business and it does not lessen its seriousness -- especially for those who are on the front line or otherwise engaged in combat -- by calling it a "police action" or a "limited" war.  War, any war, should have objectives that are both clear and worthy of sacrifice of human life. As stated by Theodore Roosevelt, 1917 - "The only proper rule is never to fight at all if you can honorably avoid it, but never under any circumstances to fight in a half-hearted way.  When peace come, it must be the peace of complete victory."

Second - Even small wars are cruel and must be fought in such a way as to win them as quickly as possible.  Under no circumstances do so-called political considerations justify prolonging the slaughter when it is possible to have victory.

Third -- In his own words, I can still hear General LeMay say, "Never to point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to shoot him dead.  A bluff in warfare should never be attempted unless one fully intends to back it up, if need be."

Fourth -- "The popular philosophy that we can, by cautious and timid military tactics, keep the war from escalating into a larger conflict is the ultimate in military blindness.  The only way to win a war is to escalate it in one way or another above what the enemy can take.  If we feel that we can't win without unacceptable risk, we have no business fighting in the first place .... Thus, when-ever we commit our young men to mortal combat, we should be equally prepared to commit our leaders, our cities, our families and civilians -- our own or the enemy's.  Modern war is that serious, and we should not forget it.

Considering our son's and daughters who "[...] choose to enlist in defense of our nation. Yet here are just some of the Rules of Engagement" [...]  that contribute to their mounting casualties as listed [...]  by John Bernard of http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/

  • “If there are or may be civilians in the area, and you are under attack, disengage;
 
  • if an (insurgent) has dropped his weapon, you can’t fire on him even if he was firing at you;
 
  • if you see an (insurgent) walking away from an IED, you can’t engage him;
 
  • no surprise night searches of homes;
 
  • no searches of homes without Afghan police or Afghan Army present to conduct the search;
 
  • even when fired upon do not fire indiscriminately;
 
  • do not tear down the homes of insurgents.
 
  • And, never, ever use words like Jihad or call the terrorists anything but ‘insurgents’.”

"[...] Exactly whom are we protecting? What sane nation risks its blood and treasure to capture the hearts and minds of barbarians who hide among civilians and who are propelled by a blood lust to destroy the West and all its civilizing Judeo-Christian values?

To make matters even worse, the ROE employed there "[...] gives control of the battlespace to the Taliban."  Using what he calls "reasoned evidence," the author points out why he believes that the ROE being employed is responsible for most, if not all U.S. and NATO deaths and casualties. 

After much thought and consideration the author, a retired U.S. Marine warrior, makes it clear why we should win and why he believes that as a result of political correctness and inept leadership starting at the national level down to the theater level, we are NOT fighting to win, rather to "protect Afghan civilians at all cost."  In so doing, we are protecting the Taliban thugs who themselves are civilians.

A review of military history supports the fact that counter insurgency, or COIN, is especially unsuited for winning wars despite what you may hear from today's some general officers still trying to prove theories they developed in earlier staff billets. The author, John Bernard is a retired U.S. Marine Corps First Sergeant, makes it perfectly clear when he points out that, "The hard truth is that America's sons and daughters will continue to pay the ultimate price for high-minded thinkers, politicians and inept leadership until the true 'King' of the country, the Citizens decide they have had enough."  to add insult to further injury and death, "And that is unlikely to happen until Islam is once again successful in attacking our homeland."

From this latest article here is just  some of what we learned.  Please click on the title for this latest original article.

 

 

 "[....] When the initial story broke 3 days ago, it went almost entirely unnoticed and even for those who read it, the most egregious element of the story seemed to be missed entirely and that is the highlighting of General Petraeus' unchallenged ego. In a war that has seen a growing number of well-informed, well-educated and experienced individuals challenging the strategy and its ROE, there is also this relentless effort to push forward - even in light of a growing body of evidence that it is a losing strategy. Even the entire spectrum of the media seems incapacitated or unwilling to accept the possibility that there seems to be a problem.

 

The Gulf Oil Spill, the Boy Scouts, Charlie Rangel's broken compass, Lindsay Lohan, the cost of Mastiffs, Reality TV, Obama's Maine vacation all seem to bear greater significance in the American psyche than does the plight of young Men and Women who have, in the taking of their oaths, pledged to lay down their lives at the whim of madmen. It just isn't 'sexy' enough.
 
This morning I got a note from Andy Bostom, a good friend with a passion for the welfare of our troops, with what is now the official release of the good General's assessment of the ROE and his intent. From the story:
 
"Going several steps better, General Petraeus has reportedly expanded the ban on air strikes and artillery fire to all types of buildings, tree-lined areas and hillsides where it is difficult to distinguish who is on the ground."
 
The fact is, not only has he deemed the ROE as proper, he has deemed it not tight enough." [....]
 

 

  • 12th imam
  • 8 signs
  • 9/11
  • Absentee
  • absolutely
  • Achilles Heel
  • al-Awlaki
  • Al-Qaeda
  • Alinsky
  • Ammo
  • Amnesty
  • Awlaki
  • AWOL
  • Baby
  • Bailout
  • Bankrupt
  • Battle
  • Benghazi
  • bin Talal
  • Bio
  • Birth certificate
  • Black Panther
  • Budget
  • Bulb
  • CAIR
  • Caliph
  • Caliphate
  • Cartel
  • Census
  • China
  • Chinese
  • Christian
  • Cloward
  • Club-K
  • COIN
  • Condell
  • Constitution
  • Contractor
  • Conyers
  • Cordoba
  • Correctness
  • Corsi
  • Debt
  • Deficit
  • Deradicalization
  • Detention
  • Dhimmi
  • DHS Homeland
  • Dialog: East Coast - West Coast
  • Domestic
  • Earth
  • Economic
  • Economy
  • Egypt
  • Electoral College
  • Electromagnetic Pulse
  • eligibility
  • Executive Orders
  • Farrakhan
  • Fast and Furious
  • FBI
  • Federal Reserve
  • Food
  • Fraud
  • Gas
  • Gaubatz
  • Global
  • Global economy
  • Governor
  • Grover Norquist
  • Guardians
  • Gulen
  • Gun control
  • Hagmann
  • Hawala
  • Healthcare
  • Hezbollah
  • Hillsdale College
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir
  • HLF
  • Holy Land Foundation
  • Homegrown
  • homosexual
  • Immigration
  • Implant
  • Information Warfare
  • Iran
  • Iranian Revolutionary Guards
  • IslamBerg
  • Islamist
  • Jekyll
  • Jew
  • jihad
  • Libya
  • like to know
  • Mafia
  • Manipulating Perceptions
  • Marriage
  • Marxist
  • Mexico
  • Military
  • Missile
  • Moderate Muslim
  • Money laundering
  • Muslim Brotherhood
  • must read
  • Myrick
  • Nazi
  • net neutrality
  • Nuclear
  • Oath Keepers
  • oil
  • Open Society
  • Operation Fast and Furious
  • Panther
  • Patriot
  • PFLP
  • Phares
  • pitchfork
  • Policy
  • political correctness
  • Politicians
  • Power
  • Progressive
  • Rare earth minerals
  • Responsibility to Protect
  • Reza Kahlili
  • ROE
  • Root
  • Roy Beck
  • Rules of Engagement
  • Russia
  • Salafists
  • SCADA
  • Schools
  • Scout
  • Semper Fidelis
  • sharia
  • Shoebat
  • Sibel
  • social justice
  • Social Security Number
  • Socialist
  • Soros
  • Spending
  • Spies
  • Strategic
  • Stuxnet
  • Submarine
  • Sunni
  • Super-sized
  • survival
  • SWAT
  • Taliban
  • Taqiyya
  • Tawfik
  • Tax
  • Team B II
  • Treason
  • troubling
  • Truth
  • TSA
  • Unemployment
  • Uplift
  • USMC
  • Vallely
  • Vieira
  • Vote
  • Voter fraud
  • War
  • Weather Underground
  • WMD
  • Zero