Marines Left For Dead by Brass, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 10-9-2009 @ 08:45 AM by KSPigpen

Ambushed Marines' Aid Call 'Rejected'

Military.com

NATO-led forces are investigating the death of four Marines in eastern Afghanistan after their commanders reportedly rejected requests for artillery fire in a battle with insurgents, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

Tuesday's incident was "under investigation" and details remained unclear, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference.

A McClatchy newspapers' journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province.

The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.

Morrell said the helicopters were not hampered by any restrictions on air power but had to travel a long distance to reach the Marines at the remote location near the Pakistan border.

"I think that it did take some time for close air support to arrive in this case, but this is not a result of more restrictive conditions in which it can be used," he said.

"It was the result, as is often the case in Afghanistan, of the fact that there are great distances often between bases where such assets are located and where our troops are out operating."

This makes me very angry. Put them in harm's way and then tie their hands. History repeats itself....again.

I think we need to stomp some ass of there, or get the hell out.

According to the McClatchy report by Jonathan Landay, the U.S. advisors assisting Afghan forces had been assured before the operation that "air cover would be five minutes away."

The incident comes after the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, issued new restrictions on the use of military force and air raids in a bid to prevent civilian deaths.

McChrystal has warned that civilian casualties caused by the NATO-led force risk alienating the Afghan population and jeopardizing the war effort.

But the general and other top military officials have insisted air support and fire power would not be restricted when U.S. troops were under direct threat.

It's obvious that these guys on the ground can't even trust their commanders. Either do it up right, or get out.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 09:42 AM by Asktheanimals

I think we need to stomp some ass of there, or get the hell out.

I think we should go for the second option, get the hell out. We
cannot win this war, in fact we have no plans to do so. Neither
do we have an end goal to define what "winning" the war is in
Afghanistan. Enough bloodshed, it's time to bring the troops home.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 09:48 AM by jimmyx

i think this a big cluster-f**k, they usually have some type of air support lurking near ground missions. some major is going to have to answer for this.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 09:59 AM by antar

It is always so hard to read and hear about this kind of situation however my Great Uncle Curly told me that in the Nvy back in the Days of Korea, that they would see entire ships left to drown and be eaten by sharks, it was the worst part of the war for him, I freaked and asked why didnt you just go over and save them? He said it risked the next ship and crew, they were under strict orders not to.

I continued on begging him to tell me that sometimes, a sailor would swim over and then they could be picked up, but it was rare.

It hurt my feelings and horrified me so bad, he never shared another of those types of stories again as he loved me, I was his little pill.

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 10:59 AM by KSPigpen

I know the comparison has been overused, but I can't help but think of Nam when I hear these stories. My heart sinks when I hear about our servicemen, with the greatest technology on the planet at their disposal, a call away and they are left to die because someone thought that 'war' should be mixed with political correctness.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 08:43 PM by AlternateEnding

What else is new?
When are the people of this country to figure
it out! Not!
I must be old as I figured it out in the third
grade! What!

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:13 PM by BaronVonGodzilla

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I know the comparison has been overused, but I can't help but think of Nam when I hear these stories. My heart sinks when I hear about our servicemen, with the greatest technology on the planet at their disposal, a call away and they are left to die because someone thought that 'war' should be mixed with political correctness.

Vietnam was the first thing I thought of too.

This has to end.

No more blood in exchange for oil.

The price is too steep, the only ones who want to pay it are the oil tycoons themselves.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:27 PM by crimvelvet

reply to post by KSPigpen

I know the comparison has been overused, but I can't help but think of Nam when I hear these stories. My heart sinks when I hear about our servicemen, with the greatest technology on the planet at their disposal, a call away and they are left to die because someone thought that 'war' should be mixed with political correctness.

Yes this reminds me of 'Nam also. I spent a lot of time at "Hi/Bye's" listening to the bitter complaints from our soldiers about being sent to die with their hands tied by "Jane Fonda and the @#$# in Congress"

You go in to win the war or you do not go in at all, the arm chair coaches need to get dropped into the middle of the war zone BEFORE they are allowed to voice an opinion.

Heck I know for a FACT the "elites" sons were not sent to 'Nam, I was married to a "favored son" with a very low draft number during 'Nam and his enlistment papers got "lost" for a year! He missed getting shipped to 'Nam by one week. It pays to have "connections"

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 11:11 PM by blackpheonix

Even though the story says that it wasnt bc of the new ROE it was there is a later article stating that the artty was denied bc of danger closeness to civilians and the new policy is to win hearts and minds so the insurgence can be fought better so collertial damage is a no now. Let me look for the link

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 11:52 PM by dooper

reply to post by KSPigpen

KS, I can honestly say that of all our conflicts, close support was never, ever a problem in Vietnam.

We were always under an umbrella of artillery, and it was spot on and very quick. (those arty boys knew we'd be coming back, and they BETTER be spot on)

The other thing we had was a large contingent of helicopters that were always nearby, and usually had some in the air supporting our moves.

This is one area that I don't understand in the ME.

This is not the first time that support has been lacking. Off the top of my head, I recall three patrols of Marines who couldn't get support all day long during a running gunfight.

Rangers at (I believe was Takr Fahr) couldn't get support either, and a number were killed and one bled out. The bit of support they DID get were fast movers, who tried, but are distinctly unsuited for ground support.

If the damned Air Force can't provide air support reliably and ON TIME, then for God's sake, give the C-130 gunships and the A-10's to the Army and Marines - the guys who NEED and USE close support.

And any dumbass commander who sends his men out without SOMETHING on call, should be shot.

In civilian life, this would be called reckless homicide. HOW can a commander do such a thing?

How can you not have covering fire? How can no support be available in a timely manner?

This drives me absolutely NUTS!

I guarantee you, had a general been on site, there'd have been half the air support circling the entire time he had his boots on the ground.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by dooper]

Pages: ^^TOP^^