It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghanistan War: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Afghanistan War: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement


news.yahoo.com

Now, rather than loosen the rules of engagement as many would have preferred, General Petraeus has tightened them. Under General McChrystal, NATO forces were prohibited from calling in air strikes or artillery fire on village compounds where the enemy might have been mixed in with civilians. 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. Although the military has kept much of the directive's fine print classified f
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Im not sure how these new rules will help in the war, but I doubt our troops will like these. Petraeus really put the lock on airstrikes and artillery. He reportedly said that the troops cant bomb "all types of buildings, tree-lined areas and hillsides where it is difficult to distinguish who is on the ground." I would guess the troops are pretty mad about this. They were even mad when Mchrystal was the general with his rules of engagment.

I have a friend over in Afghanistan and I was able to talk to him about what he thought about both generals. He said it took 15-20 minutes just to get an airstrike or artillery called in because it has to be approved, then approved again, going up the chain of command. Then when Mchrystal resigned and Petraeus came in, before these new rules of engagment came in, it didnt take long at all to call in the needed support. My friend said that during the time from when Mchrystal resigned up until these new rules came out, that was the easiest way to fight there for as long as hes been there, 2 years.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-8-2010 by buni11687]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Good, this means less civilian deaths due to incompetence.
Although this may give insurgents an edge over U.S troops.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


yes less civilian deaths and more American troop deaths so all the liberal anti- war nuts feel there is no muslim blood on there hands only American blood. Screw the civilians if they would have the courage to stand up to the taliban and overthrow them American troops wouldnt even have to be there!

Rules of Engagment this isnt a freaking sport it war damnit! I would like to stick every single Liberal in a fox hole surrounded by people who want to cut there heads off, then see how long those ideals about war hold up.

These stupid rules of engagment cost American troops there lives!!! Let the millitery do there damn job. if it wasnt for these damn restritions both of these wars would have been long over and Bin laden would be in custody.

Dont beleive these rules cost troops there lives ask Marcus Lattrell or his three dead team mates from seal team 10 who lost there lives durring operation Red wing.

Number one reason Liberals sicken me!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Yeah, let the troops do their damn job, which is to defend america. Not go on offensive campaigns to occupy countries that no empire has ever successfully occupied. Where are the Afghan's supposed to go? They live there! They're not going anywhere! Stop killing my fellow americans and printing money to do it!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
These (below) were our rules of engagement.... when we chose to "WIN" wars..... of course, the public was a lot stonger minded then...


"The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiary bombs to drop on Tokyo was on the night of 24–25 February 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city.[citation needed] Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[2] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[2] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[2] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[3][4] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million.[5] These casualty and damage figures could be low; Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus".

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   


Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs
reply to post by freetree64
 


Well, I for one am glad the public isn't more 'strong minded'. What part of 'there is no war to win' do you not get? The Afghani's aren't going anywhere and we're not winning their hearts and minds by bombing and killing them.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar
 


Sure won Japans hearts and minds, I believe they are now our ally, are they not?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by freetree64
 

So how many nukes will it take to win over the Afghani's then? Cause 9 years (americas longest war) ain't done the trick and we're going broke in the process.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar
 


One, we weren't talking about "nukes", the snippet from wikipedia refered to convential bombing in Japan, and until we are able to fight wars, with warrior mentality, 9 years is just the beginning, we will never win....


** In short, if Alexander The Great had the modern outlook on warfighting (politicians) He would have been called... "Alexander The Sort Of Kinda Great, But Not so great As To Offend Anybody"

[edit on 6-8-2010 by freetree64]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by freetree64
 

The comparison to nukes was made by you when you stated that we had won the hearts and minds of the Japanese. Do I have to explain how we won that one?

Again, this is not a War we're fighting, it's an occupation. No one has won against these guerilla insurgents, not even alexander the 'great' with all his bad ass 'warrior mentality'. I personally am not willing to lose one more young person or spend another borrowed dime to continue this stupidity.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
General Betrayus is a coward. And disrespects the American troops while placing them in danger. His *snip* isn't on the front line, but his nose is shoved way up obamas *snip*.
Bring our troops home and let Russia and China vaporize the country while stealing the natural resources.
Will see how much the peacenicks whining affects their attacks.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Verd_Vhett
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


yes less civilian deaths and more American troop deaths so all the liberal anti- war nuts feel there is no muslim blood on there hands only American blood. Screw the civilians if they would have the courage to stand up to the taliban and overthrow them American troops wouldnt even have to be there!

Rules of Engagment this isnt a freaking sport it war damnit! I would like to stick every single Liberal in a fox hole surrounded by people who want to cut there heads off, then see how long those ideals about war hold up.

These stupid rules of engagment cost American troops there lives!!! Let the millitery do there damn job. if it wasnt for these damn restritions both of these wars would have been long over and Bin laden would be in custody.

Dont beleive these rules cost troops there lives ask Marcus Lattrell or his three dead team mates from seal team 10 who lost there lives durring operation Red wing.

Number one reason Liberals sicken me!

Those men choose to go into combat, Civilians do not.
It should be priority ONE to protect the people of afghanistan.
Ofcourse I know the majority of people will disagree with me because american troops mean more to them than afghan children and people.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Verd_Vhett
reply to post by hippomchippo
 

yes less civilian deaths and more American troop deaths so all the liberal anti- war nuts feel there is no muslim blood on there hands only American blood. Screw the civilians if they would have the courage to stand up to the taliban and overthrow them American troops wouldnt even have to be there!
Rules of Engagment this isnt a freaking sport it war damnit! I would like to stick every single Liberal in a fox hole surrounded by people who want to cut there heads off, then see how long those ideals about war hold up.
These stupid rules of engagment cost American troops there lives!!! Let the millitery do there damn job. if it wasnt for these damn restritions both of these wars would have been long over and Bin laden would be in custody.
Dont beleive these rules cost troops there lives ask Marcus Lattrell or his three dead team mates from seal team 10 who lost there lives durring operation Red wing.
Number one reason Liberals sicken me!





Spoken like a true real man!
I completely agree so much that I'm making you a friend.
These pansy libs would be speaking German and working in sweat shops if it weren't for people like you who stand up to the enemy's of the free world.
Star 4 U



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The Grunts are cannon fodder.....Twas ever thus.....
They are tricked into volunteering, by various psychological ploys like "honour,Duty,Country. and stuff like that.
They have no idea what they are being used for....the average age of the front line troops cannot be more than 20....they are babies!...our babies..
Its the PTB that make them lethal ones.
From the very first the boys are taught their role, like girls are taught theirs....But the education system is a great big failure if it is so easy to trick these kids into military service with the information available to them these days....Or is the education system part of the plot?I tend to that explanation.....
We have to learn the horrible truth that those who are running things dont care wether we live or die in droves.....sure, they show up for the commanders salute on the reviewing stands...but retire to their plush surroundings while the troops slog the muddy battlefields of the world.
The boys do the fighting the dying and the killing, while the old men get richer and more evil.
It was the same in Vietnam and many other actions of political rather than nessessary war conditions...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join