Quote:
|
The post said the commanders made their decision NOT to provide fire support because of new rules designed to reduce civilian casualties. I would not bust the balls of these commanders (who is intended by "the army you have not the army you'ld like to have" other than these commanders?). They were following the rules of engagement that were dished up for them: its called following the chain of command. Who is responsible for these rules of engagement? Probably not some Colonel or General in theater but rather some very high ranking guy back in Washington or even in the Administration or even Obama himself.
|
The soldiers who had limbs blown off were following orders also because of similar 'rules of engagement' which basically said, "Go. And don't worry about the fact that this humvee has about as much armor as a Hyundai." I am still disgusted by the idea that our troops were subjected to UNNECESSARY risk and carnage for nearly TWO years before a trooper complained publicly...which triggered the embarrassment which FINALLY provided the impetus to up-armor a variety of vehicles...vehicles which were previously so flimsly that our kids were rummaging through scrap heaps for plywood and scrap metal to cobble together what they should have had to begin with.
I am utterly disgusted with the idea that we are still not willing to pull the cork out of the bottle and go to war. We are still playing with "embedded reporters" and we are still playing footsie with the "rules of engagement" in this conflict. This is very similar to our refusal to shoot into mosques.
I am primarily concerned with the safety of OUR troops first and foremost. So was Schwartzkopf.
Look at Gulf I if you want to see the type of leadership I do approve of. Schwartzkopf's first order of business was getting the job DONE, not playing to a liberal mindset of "fair play."
And when it came time to pull the cork out of the bottle, he had the stones to do it. Remember how he dealt with the convoy on its way back to Baghdad? He
destroyed those fighters and that equipment and as I recall none of that equipment and none of that particular bunch of Hussein's soldiers were still around when we marched in there again, where they? I don't recall him worrying too much about any civilians that were mixed within those lines of military hardward and ordinary pickups and passenger cars. He was primarily concerned with eliminating the enemy...the same enemy that threatened the safety of our troops on the ground.
Anybody, ANY American who does not openly and consistently demand the best for our troops and rules of engagement that protect them FIRST is feeding into an acceptance of the idea that our troops are less valuable than those we are fighting for.
So should we "wait and see" if this was somehow justified? Maybe; one can always make such an argument...but in the wake of all we've seen, so many failures, so much malfeasance, so much stupidity in the rule of engagement, so many needless dismemberments, and troopers being essentially put on public trial by embedded reporters, I won't stand on one leg waiting too long for this, which clearly appears to be yet another example of the same, to be "justified."
This idea that we should go to war "politely" with rules of engagment like we've seen, may just be the greatest threat to this nation's long-term security...especially when dealing with terrorism.
Ambushed Marines Were Refused Fire Support
Fight the darn war right (with enough troops) , or get hell out!! We don't need to make your boys sitting targets. I know what that feels like! It SUX
