MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

If we were only in Afghanistan, and not Iraq, then the military would have a much broader and more powerful support base in the US (while you may argue this point, it is very clear to me that a vast majority of Americans wanted ObL found and killed). If there was a larger base of support for war, the actions that soldiers need to take in order to win the war would be more accepted and there would be less scrutiny of soldier's actions by people back here in the US. With less public scrutiny, the military would not need to be overly paranoid about the specific actions of it's soldiers. This would mean that the people within the military who are accusing these soldiers of murder would be less likely to do so.

The way I see it, the problems our forces are having in terms of ROE and such are a direct result of us being in a war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with. It's hard to justify neccesary yet violent acts when the war itself is nearly impossible to justify. I know it's a different war...I said that to begin with. But since it's all one military, the lock down on soldier's actions exists in both wars.

Tizzo27

Actually the big reason we are having most of the trouble in Afghanistan (or either war for that matter is that we have burnt out old hippies in Congress that have tied the hands of US soldiers, so that they can then blame failure on the current administration (ala Vietnam). If the car bomb goes off the *** hats in Congress say "Oh our troops aren't even safe in the green zone or in Baghdad. But if the bomb doesn't go off it's "Those Bloodthirsty troops are killing innocent civilians that were just innocently hauling 5 105mm arty shells and driving at high speed toward a Coalition checkpoint. If the new Armor package stops the Car bomb they talk about how much it cost, if not then the Army doesn't protect the troops enough because they only care about oil profits.
Either way it becomes another reason to connect Bush to Hitler and then talk about how when Hillary gets into office the world will hold hands and sing Kumbiya!

And as far as a war we shouldn't have been in to begin with, I agree. We should have been in Baghdad since 1991, but instead we stopped some 50 miles outside of city limits and now we're forced to clean up the mess. We have been enforcing no fly zones and embargo's for 12 some years at the expense of both the American tax payer and the Iraqi civilian, while Saddam and our "Allies" the UN got rich on the oil for food program. What should have happened is we should have marched to Baghdad in 1991 killed/captured every Bathe party member we could get, fired everyone in the Iraqi Army higher than the rank of Colonel and renamed the Army the IDF or something and called it good(we could have set up a couple of bases there and it would be a one year remote tour or something. Instead we let it the situation stew for 12 years and then go in half-assed, with D's in congress already planning how they were gonna get office in 04 and 06.


Sorry for the rant, but the bottom line is simple.

Let the Military do it's job. Once we get to the point of military action the Politicos have failed and they need to shut the hell up until we have a clear and unconditional victory. Sending troops to war only to defund them later is a Bu****** move. Charging soldiers (likely those under his orders) for murder for killing a terrorist/enemy combatant is IMHO despicable move to earn political brownie points at best, and a treasonous act at worse.