You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
As U.S. deaths in Afghanistan rise, military families grow critical
2010-09-02
EFL to essential points.
Bill and Beverly Osborn still can't bring themselves to erase the phone message from their son Ben. He had called from Afghanistan in June to assure them that he was safe. Four days later, he was killed in a Taliban ambush. The Osborns long ago accepted the risks faced by their son, an Army specialist. But what they can't accept now are the military rules of engagement, which they contend made it possible for the Taliban to kill him.

They don't want to end the war, but to change the way it's being fought.
"We let the enemy fire first, and they took my son from us," Beverly Osborn said of the rules, which in most instances require U.S. forces to identify an enemy threat before firing, and to withhold fire if civilians are close by. The rules also place restrictions on close air support and artillery, prompting complaints from some service members that their lives are put at risk against an enemy that fights by no rules at all.

As American combat deaths have reached record levels this summer, public support is eroding for the 9-year-old conflict. Several recent opinion polls found that more than half of those surveyed oppose the war, with the high casualty rate among concerns most often cited. American combat deaths reached 60 in June, 65 in July, and 55 in August, according to icasualties.org. That is by far the highest three-month total of the war.

Criticism is mounting among military families too. An antiwar group of families of service members in Afghanistan and Iraq has called for an end to the Afghanistan war. At the same time, families like the Osborns, who describe themselves as conservative, are questioning the way the war is being waged.

After Bill Osborn publicly criticized the rules of engagement just before his son's wake, he said, other families of service members killed or serving in Afghanistan contacted him to express similar concerns. They don't want to end the war, Osborn said, but to change the way it's being fought.

On June 27, the Osborns wrote an impassioned e-mail to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. They described how Ben, 27, volunteered to man the machine gun on an armored vehicle headed out on a patrol in Kunar province on June 15. Their son's unit of 20 men was ambushed by a Taliban force of 70 to 100 fighters, the e-mail said. According to the Osborns, who said they talked with members of their son's unit, Ben had to wait to return fire until ordered to do so. He got off 10 rounds before he was shot and killed, they said.

The rules of engagement "led to the demise of our son ... and other warriors like him," the e-mail said. The Osborns asked Petraeus to revise the rules and lift restrictions.

"Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans is not what's best for America," they wrote. "We are at war. The rules of engagement must be to empower our soldiers, not to give aid and comfort to the enemy."

Petraeus responded within minutes, the Osborns said. His e-mail offered condolences, and noted that "commanders have a moral imperative to ensure that we provide every possible element of support to our troopers when they get into a tight spot."

The general added: "And I will ensure that we meet that imperative."
Posted by:Steve White

#9  yes and TW is right on both counts. Petraeus is good, maybe he can succeed... though to what end really since we could not change that country.

and yes, the same fifth column on the home front, the bleeding heart brigade, are the reason the rules of engagement are not protecting troops.

forget that hearts and minds crap we need to win. defeat those people, crush their culture and rebuild it from the ground up

or leave and just nuke mecca next time they fly planes into buildings. i prefer that option it's a lot cheaper and simpler.
Posted by: anon1   2010-09-02 21:10  

#8  True, Anguper, the US is struggling with its own transformation and though the media never calls it out, it really is the Second Great Depression. I am wondering when it will hit Australia.

However, I do not think 30 years would have been necessary. Germany/Japan were not occupied for that long before they became functional.

The Home Front lost it for us. There were already mass protests and disinformation campaign that accompanied the "benign" form of warfare wherein it is made clear that the citizens were not the enemy, only the regime would be targetted.

This leaves the citizens unchanged, undefeated in outlook, just with a new head on the snake.

But the problem with AfPak is the culture. so the citizens ARE the enemy.

So what is needed could have been achieved but the Home Front would not tolerate the measures necessary.

The measures necessary would have been:
1) Massive ground invasion, troop garisons in every town. Soldiers on every corner
2) a complete rebuilding of civil society
3) Compulsory education - brainwashing the Islamofascism out of a generation.
4) liberation of women, banning of the burqa by force.

Ie: complete dismantling by force of some of the aspects of Islamic culture.

Close the madrassahs, close the mosques. Reopen only government sanctioned watered down moderate mosques. No freedom of religion for a decade.

Had we been able to do such a thing from day 1, then we might be able to go home now with a vastly different country over there.

All those kids who were 10 years old in 2001 would be 19-20 now and vastly different humans than their parents generation.

but that was totally culturally untenable. No way would the homefront countenance such a thing. Cultural imperialism, invasion

and yet it would have been the greatest thing to happen for that benighted country

and also for us because then we could have had a strategic asset in the middle east and we would have had a cat to throw among the ideological pidgeons of islam. It would have been a nation then to succeed and be a beacon of freedom to the muslim arab world
Posted by: anon1   2010-09-02 21:05  

#7  Not just cutting off the leadership but massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people, and the home-front wouldn't let us do what was necessary.
This is the crux of the Afghan issue. The Home Front wouldn't let us do ...? That question as such was never presented to the electorate. It is not fair to say the Home Front blocked anything. However, had the question been presented to the electorate, I do think that their answer on 9/12/2001 and ever after would have been "HELL NO!" if they were informed of the financial cost and the high probability of losing at least a squad a month for 30 years.
A 'massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people' is way beyond what people in the USA are interested in. We are undergoing our own massive cultural transformation at the moment, and it will take over a decade to resolve. I am not referring to BHO's tilting at his personal windmills, but to the economic changes being forced on the country by the 2nd Great Depression.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-09-02 13:02  

#6  In October of 2001 Powell endorsed a future Afghan government with "moderate Taliban" participation.

Unfortunately, General Powell (ret'd.) did not turn out to be the tower of strength and wisdom as advertised. Your rant is a useful reminder, Snert Grang2025. And we all can be grateful the the good general's distaste for the rough'n'tumble of American politics kept him from running for president.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-02 12:27  

#5  'You', the US, 'we' NATO are in Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attack. 9/11 was a mass fatality attack on the continental US unprecedented by anything since Pearl Harbor, a fact that even the liberal MSM acknowledged on 9/11.

At first the consensus was that "no distinction" would be made "between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" as President Bush said.

The Taliban were to "hand over the terrorists" or they would "share in their fate."

The objective was to mete out exemplary punishment to at least the Taliban in order to restore US and western deterrence.

But this policy wasn't maintained for more than a few days after 9/11 2001.

In October of 2001 Powell endorsed a future Afghan government with "moderate Taliban" participation.

Under muslim pressure the Bush administration renamed "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom".
The former name implied punishment for a transgression the latter is unspecific.

The US air force bombarded Afghan civilians, who were still under Taliban control, with food rations, earning condemnation from western pacifists and contempt from Afghan islamofascists.

Things have gotten much worse since then, Obama's election didn't help either.

At present the west is begging the Taliban to enter a peace process and to eventually join an Afghan government ruling over a kinder, gentler but still very much islamofascistic Afghanistan.

Mullah Omar could join the Karzai cabinet today if he wished to, he would be protected by western forces and not be held responsible for 9/11 in any way.

That is not a political objective that makes sense.
Posted by: Snert Grang2025   2010-09-02 12:11  

#4  General Petraeus has already said, repeatedly, that President Obama's "fixed pullout date" is not fixed at all. The good general managed to win in Iraq, let's give him time to do the same in Afghanistan, before taking our ball and going home... to wait for the next 9/11 attack.

And the critical military families are correct: the rules of engagement are killing our guys.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-02 10:23  

#3  Besoeker, you are right.... that means this is unwinnable, so why waste any more lives and treasure? We went there for the best of reasons.... it was NOT a war for oil or any of that claptrap that the loonie left whinged about. But we really couldn't win it without defeating the people. Not just cutting off the leadership but massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people, and the home-front wouldn't let us do what was necessary.

The fifth column has prevented victory and a remaking of the middle east.
Posted by: anon1   2010-09-02 09:39  

#2  To achieve victory and eventually move on, you must control and hold the battlespace. Holding ground takes a very significant number of men and resources. While it looks and sounds impressive, patrolling the roads and surgical Pred strikes are simply not going to be enough. The strategy of our enemy is sadly, quite effective, ie, pin us to our FOBS and outposts, make patrolling costly and wait us out. We've already announced our departure date. There's is a waiting game and one they know quite well.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-09-02 04:44  

#1  Can't we just bring them home already? Why are we there? To stop the Muslims flying planes into buildings.... let's just nuke Mecca instead next time. I don't want any more beautiful Americans dying. Screw the locals if they can't be dragged into the 21st Century then leave them in the stone age to fend for themselves
Posted by: anon1   2010-09-02 04:04  

00:00