Petraeus Ready to Loosen Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, June 25, 2010, 11:52 AM
It looks like McChrystal’s resignation may be a blessing in disguise…
General Petraeus will likely modify the controversial rules of engagement and make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy according to a source close to the general.
In this March 1, 2008 file photo, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force – Iraq, talks with a group of Iraqi boys at the Al Zawra Stadium in the Karkh District of west Baghdad. Photo by Sgt. James Hunter, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AA) Public Affairs. (MNF-Iraq)
FOX News reported:
A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Petraeus spokesman Col. Eric Gunhus pushed back on the claim Friday, telling Fox News it’s too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he’ll take under consideration during his assessment after he’s confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.
Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday — after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration — that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.
Look for liberal heads to explode any second now.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 89 Comments
Mahdi Al-Dajjal commented:
I’m just wondering where all the camera crews went that used to hover over every casket of every American soldier returning home for burial and which used to interview every grieving family. Does anybody know?
The only thing I keep hearing in this regard is the Democrat Propaganda Machine is now referring to dead American soldiers as “International Force Casualties”.
regularguy commented:
Loosening the rules of engagement was probably part of the bargain. Time to spank the enemy mercilessly, and employ realistic COIN. I’m still not necessarily optimistic, however. I think COIN depends to a degree on the level of civilization of the people, and with Afghanistan that ain’t much.
bg commented:
++
Thank God & Thank You General Petraeus..
it’s a different ball game in A-stan than Iraq, Iraq had an awakening that
our troops worked long & hard at to bring about.. and credit where credit
is due, the utter ruthlessness of AQ et al certainly helped turn the tide as well..
==
down with dems commented:
Maybe he’ll lift the Fox News ban, too.
Andreas K. commented:
Loosen the RoE? Good idea. Finally someone with sense in charge of this campaign.
kato commented:
A sure sign of Blowhard’s desperation. His strategy in Afghanistan has so far been a dismal failure.
Tammy commented:
I don’t know why anyone defended McChrystal.
He was getting our troops KILLED over there.
Good riddance!
Time for a REAL General to run things.
ProLifer commented:
Ditto #8.
No Man commented:
Ditto #8 and #9.
Stanley commented:
We should learn from the Romans, an army of 50,000 trained pit bulls are a formidable opponent. I can hear the theme song, set and ready to be played, Who let the dogs out.
Paul_______ commented:
Oh I wouldn’t be so thrilled. We’ve seen it from experience that what we wish for doesn’t necessarily apply in this Communist Regime. Be careful what you wish for!!
Blacksmith8 commented:
Sorry to break the news, but, McCrystal is a flaming libtard, Petraeus? not so much
big L commented:
there is more than meets the eye here. I heard that ROE change could only come from the top, i.e. the President.
Is all thsi afghan stuff designed to set up victory for Donks in elections or for Obama in a couple of yrs. A lot of my teacher freinds and donks like all this commie stuff and the bling of the Parties. My freinds want to stick-a-thumb in the eye of the establishment and their folks.
Joanne commented:
Three more U.S. troops killed today. Eleven men found in a field – some without their heads; the Taliban accused them of helping the coalition forces. Can you imagine? These Taliban members are so evil and the coalition forces are suppose to give them rights. Bull Crap – you can’t give rights to the dead.
Joanne commented:
General Petraeus is probably the best thing that could happen for the morale and safety of the troops in Iraq – McCrystal was towing Obama’s line.
bg commented:
++
Joanne @ 1:49 pm #18
re: [McCrystal was towing Obama’s line.]
via bg #24/25 in a previous post:
McChrystal, ROEs and COIN
[Perhaps the most interesting section of the article deals with McChrystal’s controversial rules of engagement, which many troops have criticized as overly restrictive. It contains a revealing quote by the general as he tries to convince some front line soldiers that his ROEs will work. It exhibits the essential contradiction of COIN. First, you have to clear — which means killing the armed bad guys — so that you can then hold and build. “You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I’m telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe out the population out here and resettle it?”]
Obama put McChrystal in charge of the war in Afghanistan..
[On May 11, 2009 -- less than four months after being sworn in -- Obama ousted Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, and installed McChrystal. It was widely seen as a deliberate shake-up designed to improve the execution of the long-running war. In announcing the move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that ''fresh eyes were needed'' and that ''a new approach was probably in our best interest.'']
it was President Bush who put General
Petraeus in charge of the war in Iraq..
if they are “wrongfully” charging Bush for McChrystal, will they
“rightfully” credit Bush for Petraeus’?? /on a cold day in Hell-O
sarc/
==
DocScience commented:
Time to set the egg timer and see how long Patraeus can put up with the President-in-training and his band of ideologues.
tjexcite commented:
“blessing in disguise”
lets just say the winner of Iraq will finally win in Afghanistan.
Palin/Petraeus 2012
mdavis commented:
I have to call b#llsh#t on this. petraeus was the cencom commander if he did not like the roe he could have ordered mccrystal to change it. of course obama could have told him to but out. but obama did tell him to but out he should have resigned.
wanumba commented:
Time to refresh:
The Surge: The Untold Story
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/the-surge-the-untold-story/
jonyjoe101 commented:
I just hope General Petraeus is up to the job. He almost “fainted” when Senator Mccain (a non-threatening man with a mostly friendly demeaner) was asking some non confrontational questions.
Is the General prone to “fainting spells” ? We don’t want him to passout in the middle of a gunfight.
What is his view on DADT, is he a pro-gay supporter like Admiral mcmullin and Gen Mccrystal? Is he going to be campaigning for repeal of DADT while on the battlefield?
Does he want victory or does he just want a tactical retreat.
He looks too much like a politician.
bg commented:
++
jonyjoe101 @ 6:42 pm #26
clueless 101..
there, fixed it for ya..
==
AuntieMadder commented:
So, as I understood it, or at least thought I understood it, the “Hearts and Minds” strategy (aka Sitting Ducks) was Oilbama’s orders to our troops. Today on cable news, they said that was McChrystal’s strategy. And here some are saying it was McChrystal’s call and others aren’t so clear.
So, was it McChrystal or Oilbama who tied our troops hand behind their backs?
On a related note, I remember the sh!tty things the libturds said about Petreus when he was Bush’s Man in AfghaniStan. Now that he’s Oilbama’s choice, is Petreus, still horrible or has their Obamessiah washed him clean?
bg commented:
++
AuntieMadder @ 9:03 pm #29
re: [is Petreus, still horrible or has
their Obamessiah washed him clean]
well he’s Obama’s brilliant choice at this point..
note GP gets indirect credit via Obama getting all the credit..
that said.. based on the “who’s getting their ‘come hell or high
water’ way”.. as far as i can tell, Obama can do as he wills..
ergo: he can see to it that GP either performs
miracle’s, or hands A-Stan back to the devil..
resulting in either or:
Obama is the Messiah..
reelect Obama, he’s winning the war..
Obama is the Messiah..
reelect Obama, he ended the war..
just making a point that this presidency has never been about US,
it’s been all about Obama & his transitioning US into the NWO..
==
bg commented:
++
ps re: bg #30
if we lose of course, it will be all GWB & his Generals fault.. /sarc/
[Obama had about as many compunctions about bashing GP back when, as he will in the future.. nothing is ever Obama's fault, nothing, he & Islam are perfection personified..]
==