Article

2009-09-02 Afghanistan

U.S. Afghan Plan Would Add 'Trigger-Pullers'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Does this really help if they're crippled by Zero's insane ROE?

Posted by PBMcL 2009-09-02 01:04|| 2009-09-02 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Does this really help

Depends for whom the help is intended.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-09-02 05:00|| 2009-09-02 05:00|| Front Page Top

#3 If you add trigger pullers, you'd better add support people too (communications, truck drivers, cooks, medics, helicopters, etc.) Our guys are the most effective trigger pullers in the world, but they, with rare exceptions, don't work alone.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-09-02 09:02|| 2009-09-02 09:02|| Front Page Top

#4 I have seen the theme that Americans are against the Afghan war mentioned with greater frequency in the news of late. Is this true, or is this something the press is using to play with their readers' thinking? I don't think Americans think much either way. Perhaps that is being confused with this "negative" perception the press is touting?

Posted by gorb 2009-09-02 12:36|| 2009-09-02 12:36|| Front Page Top

#5 "I have seen the theme that Americans are against the Afghan war "

In polls the majority say they support the afghan war. The majority also says they oppose any increase in the number of troops. But everyone Ive read on either side of the debate says we need to EITHER increase troop strength OR redefine, withdraw, change mission, etc.

Conclusion - lots of people who answer polls have not been really following the debate.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:15|| 2009-09-02 15:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Does this really help if they're crippled by Zero's insane ROE?

Not if you believe the old ROE was working. AFAICT, Petraeus, Gates, and McCrystal do not believe it was.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:16|| 2009-09-02 15:16|| Front Page Top

#7 BTW, apparently we are still using airpower

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/us_afghan_forces_str_1.php

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:45|| 2009-09-02 15:45|| Front Page Top

#8 #1: Airpower, I believe, was not deemed unusable, just had more restrictions on who, when, where.

#2: Previous ROE . . . was fairly broad. Essentially, any civilian with a weapon could be engaged. As I recall, no Afghan is allowed a weapon for self-defense. It is my opinion that the unarmed populace cannot defend itself from the thugs, both those in cahoots with the Taliban and those who are affiliated with the warlords (or both).

People who cannot defend themselves don't get to vote, nor do they live long enough to make good allies against the thugs*

*The tailor who worked at the FOB I was at referred to the local 'Taliban' as thugs, because they did not believe in the religion, they just wanted power over other people.

Posted by Jame Retief 2009-09-02 16:06|| 2009-09-02 16:06|| Front Page Top

#9 Every time i try to answer a poll, they always refuse to allow me to finish without giving my E-Mail address

They're NOT getting it, so my answers get shitcanned

Multiply this by 300 million americans and they're only truly polling the careless.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-02 19:30|| 2009-09-02 19:30|| Front Page Top

23:48 3dc
23:13 notascrename
23:07 trailing wife
23:06 trailing wife
23:03 trailing wife
23:01 Old Patriot
22:59 tipover
22:53 JohnQC
22:49 JohnQC
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:29 Old Patriot
22:27 Old Patriot
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:23 Old Patriot
22:21 CrazyFool
22:20 Pappy
22:00 trailing wife
21:54 trailing wife
21:49 Rambler in Virginia
21:47 DMFD
21:44 trailing wife
21:42 trailing wife
21:40 Barbara Skolaut