This is just stupid...

[6SpeedTA95]

U.S. passes up chance to strike Taliban - South and Central Asia - MSNBC.com

The rules of engagement are some of the most closely guarded secrets in the U.S. military. Once revealed, they may allow the enemy to modify its tactics, techniques and procedures to make itself less of a target.

The current rules of engagement, likely developed by senior Pentagon officials, do not rule out an attack on religious gathering but do generally prohibit an attack on a religious site such as a cemetery or mosque, military analyst and retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs told MSNBC TV.

“The reason for these rules of engagement is that we’re not engaged in a full-out war, where we have unconditional surrender as the objective. In that case we would bomb everyone and sort it out later on,” Jacobs said. “You have a very heavy political component here, and that ’s why (the rules of engagement) are difficult to change.”

We're at war and we're not bombing them because they were gathered to honor OTHER terrorist fighters?

Someone please tell me what the hell is wrong with this country when we can't engage the enemy?

I find this to be particularly disturbing. Here we have nearly 200 enemy combatants and we do nothing. Why do we do nothing? To take the moral high ground? They weren't in a civilian party, they weren't at a wedding, they were at a funeral honoring other terrorist/taliban fighters. So we choose not to engage them...This is the kind of shit that could seriously damage this country and our military morale and stature in the world. If the world thinks we're soft we'll be challenged more often and on more serious matters.

[Thorgrim]

I blame Clinton

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I blame Clinton

quit trolling my thread

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

quit trolling my thread

I'm serious, with his pussy-footing around in foreign policy, it led to the hiring of command staff like this who are cowardly about pulling the trigger, i don't see how he is completely blameless

[WickedLou9]

I think it was a missed opportunity as well, but they could make the arguement that we won't sink to thier level. We must maintain the moral high ground and all that.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I'm serious, with his pussy-footing around in foreign policy, it led to the hiring of command staff like this who are cowardly about pulling the trigger, i don't see how he is completely blameless

Ahh some reasoning, thats a little better

So now do you seriously believe this is a Clinton problem? Much of is DoD and pentagon staff left with his administration. Granted not all of them and they did set the tone and do some hiring/promoting/appointing that affect the military today.

So whats the solution?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think it was a missed opportunity as well, but they could make the arguement that we won't sink to thier level. We must maintain the moral high ground and all that.

Didn't read the whole article did you?

Thats exactly what they said the reasoning was. Absurd IMO...I also fail to see how this isn't all out war as stated by a pentagon official.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Ahh some reasoning, thats a little better

So now do you seriously believe this is a Clinton problem? Much of is DoD and pentagon staff left with his administration. Granted not all of them and they did set the tone and do some hiring/promoting/appointing that affect the military today.

So whats the solution?

obviously we need to invent a time machine and go back and convince voters to elect Bob Dole, or Bush I

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Didn't read the whole article did you?

Thats exactly what they said the reasoning was. Absurd IMO...I also fail to see how this isn't all out war as stated by a pentagon official.

It was on the news earlier today actually. NBC I think. Amyway I meant that I understand thier arguement.. I'm just not sure I agree with how you weigh something so significant as taking out 200 taliban fighters and making a big stride in the goal to win the war... against some lofty moral ideas of what is right and wrong.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

obviously we need to invent a time machine and go back and convince voters to elect Bob Dole, or Bush I

You haven't contributed to this thread anything positive or constructive. Please stop derailing threads. People are allowed to discuss issues you disagree with on this forum without the condescending tone.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread, please don't try to ruin it. Thanks.

[ballz2wallz]

ah yes, war rules. gotta love the fact that we're the only country with them.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

ah yes, war rules. gotta love the fact that we're the only country with them.

Not rly. The military guy himself said when we're really in a war, we bomb them all and sort them out later. The problem here is that this isn't really a war; it's more like the "war" on drugs. Calling this a "war" is just a rhetorical tool republicans like to throw around, and this is proof that even the military and the administration realize it. Sorry...looks like you fell for Bush's bullshit again.

[thomez]

Winning this "war" is not about killing them all, which is not possible, but rather promoting the conditions which limit the amount of new ones. When killing 200 at a funeral creates an avenue for such strong propaganda possibilities, which will possibly create 500, a thousand, or multiple thousands more, it simply doesn't make sense. This is not an army with a limited number, of which the more we eliminate, the safer we are - for they will, and have, increase in number depending on the public view of our actions.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Not rly. The military guy himself said when we're really in a war, we bomb them all and sort them out later. The problem here is that this isn't really a war; it's more like the "war" on drugs. Calling this a "war" is just a rhetorical tool republicans like to throw around, and this is proof that even the military and the administration realize it. Sorry...looks like you fell for Bush's bullshit again.

then rules of engagement shouldn't be relevant, should they?

[kinggovernor]

hearts and minds

[beez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

then rules of engagement shouldn't be relevant, should they?

It's a different, more restrictive, set of rules when you're not in a real war but still bombing people.

[avsp]

The mission in Afghanistan cant be achieved by purely military means, it is a political mission requiring a political solution, ..., like tkg said 'hearts & minds', ..., so its not an 'all-out-war-with-unconditional-surrender', thus obviously the RoE are going to be choc-a-bloc with contingencies.

but then again i cant believe we're even having this discussion

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by avsp

cant be won bt purely military means, it requires a political solution, ..., like tkg said hearts & minds, ..., thus obviously the RoE are going to be choc-a-bloc with contingencies

but then again i cant believe we're even having this discussion

say what?

[motivez]

So we shouldn't try to win the hearts and minds of other Afghani Muslims by showing that we respect their culture enough not to bomb religious ceremonies, that we're better than our enemy, etc?

I think that's an important fact missed here in this discussion. Would it have been nice to kill them? Sure.

But ultimately this decision has ensured that the Taliban and other extremist organizations can't use an attack on a funeral/mosqu/whatever as propaganda that we're really waging a war against Islam.

We shouldn't be afraid to take a political look at a situation like this and see what the cost / benefits are of a certain decision.