RoE are FUBAR

EDITORIAL: Ready, aim, hold your fire

Our troops are saddled with dangerous rules of engagement

The recent battle in Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province was a key test case for new rules of engagement that emphasized protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents. The town was taken, but whether that was because of the new rules or despite them remains to be seen.

The rules of engagement are probably the most restrictive ever seen for a war of this nature. NATO forces cannot fire on suspected Taliban fighters unless they are clearly visible, armed and posing a direct threat. Buildings suspected of containing insurgents cannot be targeted unless it is certain that civilians are not also present. Air strikes and night raids are limited, and prisoners have to be released or transferred within four days, making for a 96-hour catch-and-release program.

In Marjah, the enemy quickly adapted to the rules, which led to bizarre circumstances such as Taliban fighters throwing down their weapons when they were out of ammunition and taunting coalition troops with impunity or walking in plain view with women behind them carrying their weapons like caddies. If World War II had been fought with similar rules, the battles would still be raging. Paradoxically, America's most successful post-conflict reconstructions were in Germany and Japan, where enemy-occupied towns like Marjah were flattened without a second thought.

U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the NATO commander, said, "The Afghan people are at the center of our mission. In reality, they are our mission." Yet protecting civilians is difficult in an unconventional conflict in which the battlefield has no front
lines. As an anonymous Pentagon planner told Time magazine, "It's harder to separate the enemy from the people when they are the people." Helmand province is part of the Taliban's core area; they see the fight as homeland defense.

British Cousins Step Up In Afghanistan

Empire Road
Britain commits her famed fighting units to Helmand.
John Noonan

As Operation Moshtarak enters its second week, Americans should take a minute to appreciate just how lucky we are to have the British fighting alongside U.S. and Afghan forces. Their vast experience in imperial counterinsurgency notwithstanding, this marks the third war that the British have fought in the Hindu Kush.

Afghanistan had a profound effect on British military culture. They were defeated on retreat from Kabul in 1842, a loss so devastating to their collective psyche that it was lamented as "the heaviest calamity that has ever fallen on British arms." The Second Anglo-Afghan War, which came at the height of the Great Game between England and Russia, slightly improved the British posture in the region (and was the inspiration for The Ballad of the King's Jest, a terrific Kipling poem).

Over a century later, all the pomp and majesty of British military history resurrects itself in an old neighborhood. The UK forces fighting in Marjah are legendary light infantry and fusilier formations, rich in both experience and victories. The Royal Welsh regiment fighting alongside U.S. Marines is a direct descendant of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who took Bunker Hill. The 1st Grenadier Guards, which recently celebrated its 350th anniversary, was decisive at Waterloo and fought in both Gulf Wars. And the Coldstream Guards, most famous for their sentinel duties at Buckingham Palace, include Gibraltar, Waterloo, Boer War, Marne, Somme, Dunkirk, El-Alamein, Salerno, and the Persian Gulf War amongst their battle honours.

So history repeats itself, in a sense. The Empire has faded away, but the formations which built London's yawing imperial expanse are still slugging away in remote corners of the world. The territory has dissipated, but the knowledge and fighting skill remains. It's that experience, amalgamating force and government, which makes Britain such an indispensable ally.

1/6 Marines in Douchebagistan

US Marines facing a 'different war' in Afghanistan

A foot patrol for one platoon of Marines ends with a dash under a hail of bullets across a heavily-mined poppy field.

The soldiers have been pinned down in a muddy mound, the thorny weeds cutting through skin. They recover soon enough, however, manoeuvring away from the Taliban's crosshairs and driving them away with heavy machine-gun fire.

"I pray in the morning and at night, hoping that someone up there is looking after me," says Lance Corporal Justin Blancas, serving with the Marines 1st Battalion, 6th Regiment Alpha Company's 2nd Platoon.

"I have already made my peace with God because this war is different, it's not conventional," the 23-year-old bespectacled Chicago native says.

"These Taliban have learned their lesson. They adapt as fast as we do, but we are bound by our strict rules. They are not," he adds, panting after a 100-metre dash for cover behind an abandoned mud house.

"It can be a death run like this every day."

Read the rest here

Here's Something You Don't See Very Often

Dhimmicrats playing politics with our Warriors lives by using the Tax Code to punish those of us who believe in the neccessity of victory over the goat humping sub-humans who want to wipe us from the face of the Earth in the name of a false-prophet who preferred little boys and taught his followers that killing innocent people would garuntee them a path to Paradise and 72 virgins.

I have to revise and extend my remarks in reference to this ridiculous piece of street theater by the dhimmicrats. I will be more than happy to authorize the re-direction of my payroll taxes to help increase the number of dead Tangos.

If thats what you sappers want, fine, take it. But there is a catch: you don't spend another freaking dime of money on ANYTHING until we have eliminated the threat of islamist extremism where ever it is found. You stop at nothing. You expend every ounce of resource to make sure not a single American soldier, sailor, airman, Marine or civilian dies at the hands of scum sucking sub human turds. And you better not take a freaking dime for yourself or any of your pet projects, either.

Weekly Standard

Pelosi Discovers Her Inner Fiscal Hawk
Nancy Pelosi insists: "We have to look at that war with a green eyeshade on." She is talking about the war in Afghanistan--with anticipation that President Obama will increase resources for the war effort. Increased troops to fight our enemies in Afghanistan will require more money for this effort, of course. And Pelosi and her comrades (especially, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey) want to raise taxes to pay for this. Look who all of a sudden has become a fiscal hawk!

Here are preliminary details:
Obey and several other senior Democrats have proposed a graduated surtax, beginning in 2011, to pay for the war. Their bill would impose a 1% surtax on people earning less than $150,000.

The tax hike would be higher for people earning between $150,000 and $250,000 a year, and double that for people with higher incomes. The bill does not give exact figures for what upper surtax rates would be, but says that they would be high enough to cover the previous year's war costs.

On a certain level, this makes perfect sense, right? This Democratic led congress and administration are spending money like drunken sailors. And, at a certain point, funds need to be raised from somewhere.

But let me go ahead and call this nonsense. The Democrats are playing politics.

First, they aim to politicize the entire war effort. The threat to raise taxes to pay for the war serves to weaken support for the troops. When people have to pay directly for something, it increases the likelihood that they will say no. That's why the Democrats are trying to levy direct taxes on the small percentage of Americans who make more than $100,000 to pay for health care (which they support), but are proposing to make a much larger percentage of Americans pay for the war (which they oppose).

And, second, have Democrats lost sight of priorities? They throw away money for a phony stimulus plan at a cost of $787 billion; they insist on a health care plan conservatively estimated to cost more than $2 trillion over 10 years; they have grown the deficit to $1.4 trillion -- during October 2009 alone we fell another $176.4 billion in the hole . But no--money can’t be found to support this “war of necessity” without increasing taxes. (By the way, Time estimates the increased cost to be “$30 million annually for 30,000 more troops. Not chump change, to be sure, but pennies by comparison to the rest of the federal budget.)

Pelosi, and the rest of the House Democrats, need to take off the shades and see reality. America, foremost, faces a national security threat. We must defeat the enemy--no matter the cost.

Marines Leading The Way

Marines continue to lead the way in Helmand Province.


OpFor has the details.

The Ballerina Is Making Combat Decisions?

Blackfive:

It is pretty sad when a ballerina and a man repudiated by 21 of the 22 officers he briefly served with in Vietnam represent our brain trust on military strategy. Add in the VP and his magic ninja plan and you have half of the advice the President is getting about Afghanistan. It is ludicrous to claim we need to wait until after a runoff to make a decision. Does any sentient being think someone other than Karzai will win? And if Abdullah x2 does happen to win, is that a reason to bail? This is more sorry political posturing, and feels to me like they want to put off a tough call now so they don't alienate the left wing, who they need to shove socialized medicine up our collective ass.

The One Is Gonna Have To Give The Prize Back

If he can't actually bring peace to a region.

Politicians can't win wars. Only generals can win wars.

General's D.C. Trip Put Off as Strategy Talks Drag On

Writers Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe report on what Peggy Noonan calls “the missing debate on Afghanistan” as the White House delays the return of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for a final meeting with President Obama – scheduled for this week – before the White House announces its new strategy for Afghanistan.

Much of the story is given over to praise from top Obama advisors for the president’s respect for the military chain of command. But however respectful, the president also seems keen to keep McChrystal off the Hill and out of the public dialogue.

This adds to the sense that the lengthy, private deliberations of the administration are part of an effort to look busy and buy time before Washington erupts over whatever has been decided.

“The State Department, the intelligence community and other major actors have presented their views during the ongoing White House meetings, and the appearance of Karl W. Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and Anne Patterson, his counterpart in Pakistan, are to be given significant weight. Some at the table have suggested a status quo strategy in which the current troop level of 68,000 would be maintained and more attention would be given to building the Afghan military, seeking reconciliation with some insurgent elements and solidifying ties with Pakistan.”

What To Do In Afghanistan

A national defense analyst and Pentagon advisor says there's clearly division among the president's national defense team about what course of action needs to take place in Afghanistan.

The White House said on Monday that leaving Afghanistan is not an option President Barack Obama is considering. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the president is undertaking a thorough review of the U.S. policy in the war that is about to enter its ninth year. The debate over whether to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a major element of a strategy overhaul that senior administration policy advisors will consider this week as they gather for top-level meetings on the evolving direction of the war.

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says the divide among Obama's advisors on what strategy to pursue in Afghanistan is obvious. "I know that Vice President [Joe] Biden has vocalized what I consider a counter-terrorism strategy, which essentially would only have sufficient number of forces, drones, and the like to go after al-Qaeda and some of the insurgents rather than trying to secure villages and large populated areas, which traditionally is done in counter-insurgency strategy," says Maginnis. "General McChrystal's additional troop increase request is to allow him to secure these large, populated areas."

Obama has invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House to confer on Afghanistan on Tuesday.

KTALGSIT....NOW!!!!!

No other reason is required to rid the planet of these goat-humping vermin.

Taliban claim responsibility for deadly UN blast

ISLAMABAD- Taliban terrorists claimed responsibility Tuesday for the deadly suicide bombing at the U.N. food agency's heavily fortified compound in Islamabad, saying international relief work in Pakistan was not in "the interest of Muslims."

The attack, which killed five workers for the World Food Program on Monday, pushed the U.N. to temporarily close its offices in the country and exposed the vulnerability of international relief agencies helping millions of Pakistanis, among them those affected by fighting between the government and Islamist militants.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the Taliban carried out the attack to avenge the Aug. 5 slaying of their leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in a U.S. drone attack.Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq confirmed his group was behind the bombing and lashed out at foreign aid workers.

"We proudly claim responsibility for the suicide attack at the U.N. office in Islamabad. We will send more bombers for such attacks," he told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. "The U.N. and other foreign (aid groups) are not working in the interest of Muslims. We are watching their activities. They are infidels." He said the Taliban would not attack Muslim relief groups, but that future targets would also include Pakistani security officials, government offices and American installations.

World Food Program spokesman Amjad Jamal defended the agency's work as "totally humanitarian.""We provide food. Our food is for the vulnerable groups, the poor groups who cannot afford one meal a day," he said.

The suicide bomber was dressed as a security officer and was allowed to enter the World Food Program offices _ apparently bypassing the normal security procedures _ after asking guards outside if he could use the bathroom.

The U.N. announced it was temporarily closing its offices, but said its Pakistani partner organizations would continue distributing food, medicine and other humanitarian assistance. The world body said it would reassess the situation over the next several days.

Malik, who was visiting those injured in the bombing at a hospital, said the government had taken several of the guards outside the U.N. offices into custody for questioning as part of the investigation into the security lapse.

The United Nations had already considered itself a likely target in Pakistan. Its offices are surrounded by blast walls, while staffers are driven in bulletproof cars and not allowed to bring their families with them on assignment.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said those killed in the bombing Monday were serving a "noble cause." "They will be remembered for their commendable services by the people of Pakistan," Gilani wrote in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon, according to state-run media. "Such cowardly terrorist acts will never weaken our resolve to fight against this scourge."

The attack came a day after the new Pakistani Taliban leader met reporters close to the Afghan border, vowing more attacks in response to U.S. missile strikes. Ending speculation he had been killed, Hakimullah Mehsud denied government claims the militants were in disarray and said his fighters would repel any army offensive on their stronghold in South Waziristan.

Malik said the government was already targeting Taliban militants in South Waziristan and "if needed, further action shall also be taken at an appropriate time" against militants in other areas along the Afghan border.

In the latest fighting, airstrikes and artillery fire killed two militants and nine other people in South Waziristan, intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity. They said the army was trying to establish whether the nine unidentified victims were militants.

Go Big or Go Home

October 6, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker

Moving forward in Afghanistan

Last Saturday, eight American servicemen and two Afghan policemen were killed in a terrorist assault in Afghanistan.

This blow comes at a critical point in the war, when General Stanley McChrystal, the NATO commander, has reportedly asked President Obama for an additional 40,000 U.S. troops in order to beat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Despite pledges to improve security in Afghanistan, the President now seems on the fence about fulfilling his commander's request.

McChrystal has offered a promising strategy for the war. President Obama would be wise to embrace this long view strategy, writes Heritage's Conn Carroll in the Morning Bell, "and avoid short-sighted policies that undermine our friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while encouraging our enemies."

Americans should pay close attention to the path President Obama chooses in Afghanistan, since his decision will prove critical to America's national security interests, write Heritage Foundation experts Lisa Curtis and James Phillips.

"There appears to be some wishful thinking within the Obama Administration regarding the U.S's ability to negotiate a political solution with the Taliban," write Curtis and Phillips. But negotiations have yet to work with al-Qaeda and Taliban, who are now more unified than ever by their anti-Western aims.

As Henry Kissinger wrote in Newsweek, "even so-called realists -- like me -- would gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan."

Recent U.S. gains in Pakistan provide sufficient evidence that we can succeed, but only with continued dedication and support in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Now is the time to demonstrate military resolve in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda and its affiliates will be squeezed on both sides," insist Curtis and Phillips. "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, nor will public support."

Yet the Left continues to stall any decision by pressuring the White House to devise an exit strategy and refuse any additional troops. President Obama should ignore
the partisan rhetoric. Instead, he should trust the expertise and judgment of those he personally appointed to lead.

"If the Obama administration chooses to deny its field commander's request for more troops and instead seeks to engage Taliban leaders in negotiations with the vain hope that these militants will break from their al-Qaeda allies, the results will likely be disastrous," warn Curtis and Phillips.

2nd Marines in Afghanistan

A U.S. Marine keeps watch during a patrol in Sorkhdoz, in southern Afghanistan's lower Helmand River valley, July 3, 2009. The Marines spent their first night in the valley after seizing towns and villages there in a massive helicopter and ground assault known as Operation Strike of the Sword. Reuters

This photo and many others are found at Cryptome.org.

Go see what's happening over there.
May God Bless America. Thank God that we have troops like these.

h/t Maggie's Farm