Roe

 

I can tell you this, from the first time I went to Afg in 2004, through all of the Iraqi deployments and up to the last Afg deployment, the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) changed drastically. The big take away? The enemy knew when they changed and how then took advantage of the changes. You can NOT put warriors in harm’s way with restricted actions. If you do, then simply bring them home. If you’re going to send them to do a job, give them every technical advantage your country offers, and let them do their job, then bring them home. Having them sit somewhere for no reason and hinder them from fighting results in one thing, dead warriors. Time for a C-Gar

 

 

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Its one thing to fight a war with a mission but when you go there and begin fighting, your ROE and the "war" changes over time. Mainly because of time there and politics. Somtimes a change of political leader. Going to war to do anything but win, win fast, minimize casualties and come home is not good leadership. Its interesting to see how many of our leaders make policy for Americans at war especialy when they themselves have no family memebers fighting in that war.
 

Comments

  1. And where are Generals McChrystal and Patraeus now? The current administration has systematically changed the leadership of our military, all part of their goal to “transform” our fighting forces. Because you know, there’s nothing that a raging liberal hates more than folks in uniforms with weapons. Think about it. SF.

Leave a Reply