Saturday, December 20, 2014

Insanity: The Obama Cabal Rules of Engagement Against a Terrorist "NO RULES" ENEMY.. Training our Military to lose!




( They are doing the same thing with the Police Forces in Country!)


THE Insanity OF The Rules of Engagement.


What are the Rules of Engagement (ROE)? These are the military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces.

New rules of engagement were put into place by the Obama administration starting in 2009 and 2010, which has most certainly caused hesitation and confusion for our military.

In an article for the Washington Times, Rawan Scarborough interviewed Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S intelligence office from NATO headquarters who said:

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement] casualties more than doubled. The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerne said:
“We have handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.”

In 2010, the first full year of the troop surge, there was five times the annual death toll compared with 2006-2007  and three times the number in 2008.

What do the rules of Engagement say about collateral damage?
“Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on non-combatant persons and structures.”

What does this mean to the soldiers on the ground who are in an intense fight with the enemy? All attacks with the possibility of harming 30 or more civilians need approval from the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in writing before they can be carried out?  Is this reasonable?

An article published in 2009 in the Washington Times was able to piece together specific components of the new Rules of Engagement:

  • No night or surprise searches.
  • Villagers must be warned prior to searches.
  • Afghanistan Army or police must be present on U.S. searches.
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless they fire first.
  • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy of civilians are present.
  • Only women can search women.
Troops can fire at insurgents placing an IED but not if walking away from the area were IED’s are placed.

What kind of war are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do the bad guys wear uniforms? Do the bad guys hide guns? Do the bad guys commit suicide by carrying bombs covered by civilian clothes? Do the bad guys use women and children to carry out killings of soldiers? The problem is soldiers cannot tell who the bad guy is, and this is definitely an advantage for the enemy.

Marcus Luttrell, of  "Lone Survivor" said:
“Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan specified that we could not shoot, kill, or injure unarmed civilians. But what about the unarmed civilian who was a skilled spy for the forces we were trying to remove? What about an entire secret army, creeping through the mountains in Afghanistan pretending to be civilians?  These terrorists/insurgents know the rules… They’re not their rules. They’re our rules, the rules of the Western countries, the civilized side of the world.  The rules are unworkable because half the time no one knows who the goddamned enemy is, and by the time you find out, it might be too late to save your own life. Making sense of the ROE’s in real-time situations is impossible.”

Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance, 28,  was found guilty of 2 counts of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and dismissal from the military,  when he returned home from two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was his crime? In July 2012 Lorance ordered the engagement of three Taliban scouts who were tracking his platoon’s movements. His men opened fire immediately  and two of the men were killed while one ran away. Lorance said he was trying to protect his unit. The previous platoon leader of the unit had recently been killed.

The government prosecutor said, “Lt. Lorance used his rank and position to harass, intimidate, threaten and murder Afghans.”
In an interview on NPR, Tom Bowman, a National Desk reporter,  told his firsthand experience while in Afghanistan:

“[W]e were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb. They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. there was another combat outpost not too far away. the problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gum and the guys planting the bomb. So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machine guns to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that’s become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw the jug into a haystack.”

The Marines no longer had the authority to engage the enemy.
An article in Breitbart by Billy and Karen Vaughn, told the story of an Army Ranger who recently left the military and said, “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”

According to the article:
“This decision came after he lost a friend to the Rules of Engagement. He explained how the Taliban had attempted an ambush on his friend’s squad but quickly realized they were in a battle they couldn’t win and began retreating. While chasing them, the U.S. soldiers were ordered not to engage due to the slight chance the Taliban had laid down their arms as they ran through some type of shack. While arguing with leadership at the Joint Operations Center, his friend was shot and killed.”

Recently Captain William Swenson was given the Medal of Honor.  Swenson spoke of his frustration when he repeatedly called headquarters to request airstrikes but was denied for hours as more than 150 Taliban fighters attacked his position. He said:
“It’s not JAG’s [military attorney] responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building.’”
“I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”
“I just get the craziest thing across the radio sometimes. Just people second guessing.”

Another soldier in the same report said  there was a dwelling used by the Taliban, including women, as a safe haven from which to fire rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Yet the command would not target the building. He said:
“Let’s focus on [rules of engagement] because there is no reason you can’t level a house if they are shooting from it. I’ve never heard of a rule that would not allow  [you] to fire on a house. They always teach you that you always have the right to defend yourself. Let commanders on the ground make decisions. We are using lawyers to make tactical decisions.”

Is this how we treat the heroes that have volunteered to fight for our country? How can we allow politicians who have never been to the battlefield  or officers sitting at a desk in Washington to decide at what moment a soldier is able to defend himself or his unit in wartime? When a soldier is faced with a split second decision, should they be forced to hesitate and potentially lose their life or be prosecuted when they return home for committing a crime?
New rules instituted by the current administration demand that no military attack via air or ground can be launched unless it can be guaranteed that no civilians will be killed, no collateral damage will occur. Airstrikes cannot be launched unless the person authorizing the strike is willing to declare on the record that there will be no collateral damage or face prosecution.

The Rules of Engagement, since Vietnam, used to be about doing whatever it takes to win. Now, soldiers must adhere to rules made by politicians who have never seen the battlefield, attempting to be politically correct and by the media who demonize any soldier that is involved in a battle where there is collateral damage. Are these the rules of a Nation who is concerned about protecting the lives of our soldiers or the rules of the few who are looking to keep their cushy government jobs by pacifying the public to ensure their re-election?
It is time to bring common sense back to government. Collateral damage, and unintentional killing of civilians is a consequence of war. But the question is are our soldiers lives more important than the inevitable collateral damage? Should our soldiers be forced to defend their wartime actions, in the middle of a battle,  to the government of the United States while they are fighting for the people of the United States?

It sounds like pure Insanity. WE ARE TRAING OUR FIGHTERS TO LOSE!!


Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan

Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists

The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.
The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.
“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.
afgan cartoonRyan Zinke, who commanded an assault team within SEAL Team 6, said of the security deal: “The first people who are going to look at it and review it are the enemy we’re trying to fight. It’s going to be a document that can be used effectively against us. This is where we either fight or go home. What’s happening is we’re losing our ability to fight overseas.”
Mr. Karzai wants to defer the document’s signing to his successor in April’s presidential election, but Afghan legislators are pressing him to sign the deal now.
Even before the security agreement’s rules of engagement were drafted, troops complained about meeting the requirements of an increasingly burdensome checklist before they can fire. The rules grew stricter in 2010 after a series of mistaken U.S. bombings killed civilians and special operations troops raided villages and homes at night.
The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher.
Said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, now a military analyst: “Call me crazy, but what on earth is the point of remaining there under these [rules of engagement], much less subjecting American soldiers to another set of restrictions that make sense only in proportion to your distance from the combat zone?”
The security agreement lays out the legal status of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, when all international combat forces are set to leave the country. As many as 18,000 international troops — including 8,000 from the U.S. — will remain for 10 years to train and assist Afghan security forces and hunt terrorists.
Terrorist-hunting missions will require U.S. personnel to engage in combat by accompanying Afghans on counterterrorism raids and supplying close-air support. That is why the rules for when U.S. troops can and cannot fire on the enemy or enter a dwelling remain important.
A rare look at today’s classified rules of engagement is contained in the huge investigative file on the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.
An AH-64 Apache gunship pilot said he saw the spot from where Taliban operatives fired the rocket-propelled grenade that felled the chopper.
“Due to [rules of engagement] and tactical directives, I couldn’t fire at the building where I thought the [shooter] was, so I aimed directly to the west of the building,” the pilot testified, according to transcripts obtained by The Washington Times.
During the battle that preceded the shootdown, the crew of an AC-130 gunship spotted two armed Taliban fighters who were moving into new positions.
“There were several opportunities where we could have engaged with 40 mm ensuring zero [collateral damage estimate] on any buildings,” the navigator testified. “The opportunity was definitely there for us to engage those two guys or even provide containment fires to try to slow their movement.”
Investigator: “Did you ask to engage them?
Navigator: “Yes, sir.”
Investigator: “And it was denied, right?
Navigator: “Yes, sir.”
AC-130 commander: “I think he spoke with the Ground Force Commander and he said, ‘No. No-go. Just maintain eyes-on.’”
Mr. Zinke, the former SEAL, said he talks to guys coming back home who are frustrated because the rules of engagement “are too restrictive.”
“I’ve always been a champion of, if we are going to fight, fight to win,” said Mr. Zinke, a candidate in the Republican primary for a House seat in Montana. “And you’ve got to give our troops that are in harm’s way every tool and every advantage that is possible.
“And when you start restricting [rules of engagement] — when you limit our ability to fight at night, where you restrict the ground commanders’ ability to react quickly without having to go up the chain of command and also when you’re forced to bring along the Afghan forces who are notorious for the lack of security — then I think it puts troops in greater risk.”
Mr. Kerry said last week that the security deal demonstrates to Mr. Karzai that Washington is listening to his concerns about civilian deaths.
“It’s very important for President Karzai to know that the issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed,” the secretary of state said.
Lisa Curtis, a foreign-policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said there are some pluses. Mr. Karzai is agreeing to some night raids, and Mr. Obama’s language “does leave room for the U.S. to conduct counterterrorism missions against high-value targets,” she said.
Left unsettled is Mr. Karzai’s call for a delay in signing the agreement until the spring.
“That would almost certainly be a deal-killer from the U.S. perspective, as the U.S. needs to begin planning for any residual force presence no later than January 2014,” Ms. Curtis said.



“In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, this administration authorized the implementation of the COIN strategy. Over the next five years, the U.S. death toll skyrocketed to 2,292.”
COIN – the failed Counterinsurgency strategy also known as “winning the hearts and minds of the enemy.” This and “our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), have made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.”
The Obama Administration is telling our young men to win a war with their hands tied behind their backs. Slaughtering them. Unbelievable. Our Commander-in-Chief is aiding and abetting the enemy. Impeach Obama.
“Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009.”
“In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate.”
Excerpts are from an article written by: Billy and Karen Vaughn who are Gold Star parents of Special Operations Chief (SEAL) Aaron Vaughn, KIA 6 Aug 2011. Billy is the author of “Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17.” Read more or schedule the Vaughns for a speaking event at
Related article here about our troops being at greater risk since Obama’s new Rules of Engagement.
It mentions the situation under investigation where Aaron Vaughn was needlessly killed…”the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.”


No comments:

Post a Comment