| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement? |
| 2010-06-25 |
| A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim. Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command. Petraeus spokesman Col. Erik Gunhus disputed the claim Friday, telling Fox News it's too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he'll take under consideration during his assessment after he's confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan. Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday -- after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration -- that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy. At the same news conference at the Pentagon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Petraeus will be able to make tactical changes. But he said that does not necessarily mean changes will be made and echoed the president's insistence that the strategy stays as he prepared for a visit to the war zone. "My message will be clear: Nothing changes about our strategy, nothing changes about the mission," Mullen said. The issue is likely to be front and center in Senate confirmation hearings for Petraeus next week. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #14 Does it include an opium virus or fungus? If not... forget the war... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2010-06-25 21:18 |
| #13 Word, Frank G. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2010-06-25 20:25 |
| #12 I'm hoping we have ROE that a) kill the enemy and any of their supporters (document same - publish the evidence); b) tell Karzai to STFU or join Najibulah; c) tell Pakland to get on teh program or the drones may stray to the ISI's Taliban supporters; d) reinforce our "strategic partnership" with India and allow that as circumstances play out - that may increase dramatically. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-06-25 20:08 |
| #11 This was not a war Petraeus could have won under Bush. It's a stone age backwater not worth the blood of a single American. After the first victory we should have told them that if we had to come back to kill the Taliban we would simply use our death rays to kill every living thin in A-stan, and then left. Everything since then has been wasted effort. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-06-25 19:52 |
| #10 Obambi is desperate. He needs a win that the US can actually get behind. He'll turn Petraeus loose and sulk in his closet as the General does what needs to be done. Is it too late? I'm not hopeful. In the long run, Obambi doesn't care. If we lose, he'll shrug and blame it on Bush and then go in to retirement following 2012 - the damage having already been done according to plan. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2010-06-25 19:45 |
| #9 reasonable ROE might be closer to 'civilians' in the immediate area of legitimate targets making no effort to leave the area once hostile acts begin become legitimate combatants. this would include but not be limited to messengers, ammunition carriers, spotters, and cheerleaders. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-06-25 19:41 |
| #8 New ROE: If it moves, vaporize it. If it doesn't move, blow it up, if it ever thought about moving, drop FAE on it. Then bounce the rubble. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2010-06-25 19:37 |
| #7 Mullen will be under the bus soon. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2010-06-25 18:38 |
| #6 Yes, Petraeus can change the ROE. And Obama can fire him too if he doesn't like them. However, it would stick Obama clearly with any failure and disaster that Afghanistan becomes. Given the popularity of the victor of Iraq over the Blamer-in-Chief, it will only tank further the ability of the Donks to hold on power. It frees the general to run in 2012. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-06-25 18:32 |
| #5 Of course he will. He didn't vote for Bambi. And you can bet there was some evening of scores when Bambi had to ask Betrayus to take the job. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-06-25 17:44 |
| #4 I made a comment hoping for this two days ago. Probably a change in the ROE won't be decisive but I sure hope it happens. |
| Posted by: lord garth 2010-06-25 17:41 |
| #3 I hope the ROEs are changed. It is not right to send our military into harms way with one hand tied behind their backs. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-06-25 17:04 |
| #2 What? No more medals for not shooting the enemy? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-06-25 15:39 |
| #1 Thank God they put someone with some common sense in charge of that theater. McChrystal seemed too be more worried about "innocent civilians" than the troops he was supposed too be leading. |
| Posted by: chris 2010-06-25 15:32 |