|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
08-10-2010, 04:46 AM
I'm not wrong, general Patreaus or any other general establishes rules of engagment from orders he recives from the civilian commander in chief. I'm ex military, it was drilled into us from the start who was really in controle of all combat procedures we were to adhear to via chain of command and the command chain stops at the president of the US..a civilian. Anything rules wise is done after the commander in chief has given the go ahead for those specific rules.
Techically, US troops are never suppose to fall under UN command/Nato command/ or any other foreign command, the only reason they are is because the president okayed it. ( wich constitutionally, he is not supposed to do) has something to do with not haveing to serve under another King, goes back to the revolution. . 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
again sorta not -
08-10-2010, 05:06 AM
wrong again dude?
your sources? The US military in Afghanistan does not wait for orders issued from the White House thousands of miles away on how to carry out it's combat operations on the ground. Gen. Petraeus has never complained about the rules of engagement or his predessor Gen. Stanley McCrystal. You have no sources except your reminders of your military experience? Are you comparing your experience to Gen.Petraeus or Gen. McCrystal ? How would the President or Congress construct or issue a order to Gen. Petraeus in Afghanistan about combat operations without looking like complete idiots? Please enlighten us on how the President or Congress would micro manage a counter insurgency on the other side of the planet? What type of military background does the President have? Congress? As commander and chief of the armed forces would 'nt it make more sense to delegate command to those commanders who serve in the armed forces and trust in their training and military experience to make decisions since they are actually in Afghanistan? Or co*kblock and handcuff the field commander in Afghanistan with your silly fantasy about commanding troops in the field in combat from thousands of miles away? Counterinsurgency FM 3-24 (2006) a U.S. Army and U.S. Marines Manual by Lt. General David Petraeus and Lt. General James F Amos This is the new U.S. military counterinsurgency (COIN) manual on how to combat organized movements that seek to overthrow governments through subversion and armed conflict. Coauthored by Army General David Petraeus and Marine Corps General James Amos.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
08-11-2010, 03:09 AM
The source is the US CONSTITUTION. Every aspect of the chain of command and rules of engagement that Petreaus or anyone else uses to operate in the field, had to be run by president Obama FIRST. If he didn't sign off on the way the rules were written, they would have to redo them.
Obama himself said he was going sit down and discuss stratagy concerning how the war in Afganistan was going to be carried out Under his Command, right when he took office. What do you think that was? He basically told them what he wanted done, the results he expected and how he exspected them to be carried out. The generals then presented him the operational procedures they would utilize to carry out his orders. I understand the field manual for counter insurgency, as long as it adhears to the policy set forth by Obama it's fine, anything within it that runs counter to that policy has to be rewritten or taken out. Believe me, much that was in the rules of engagment when Bush was president has had to be changed since Obama took office cause he views things differently than Bush did. We aren't fighting the war now the same way we were just 3 years ago. New president, new policy.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta really wrong -
08-11-2010, 03:21 AM
wrong again dude.
sources? The US Consitution has nothing to do with a military chain of command or a counter insurgency. The President does not have any military experience or the Congress. What type of assessment or order would they make with or without a consitution under your silly fantasy? Dude you have no sources and the only source besides your 'vast military experience' - you throw out the US Consitution in a lame attempt to explain your silly fantasy of how to co*kblock and handcuff the commander in the field thousands of miles away ? New President same old policy dude- the only thing new is the level of 'epic fail'. below is an example of a sources. Originally Published: 8/10/2010 Morton Kondracke: Obama's Afghanistan policy following Bush's Iraq policy President Barack Obama is an unremitting critic of President George W. Bush, but in Afghanistan, Obama has begun walking in Bush's shoes. Strategy in Afghanistan is unraveling Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg News August 10, 2010 Washington — When Gordon Goldstein sees Afghanistan as “déjá vu,” a mission that’s “unraveling,” it isn’t the ramblings of another armchair critic. Goldstein argues it’s clear the counterinsurgency and population-protection policy, as set out in General Stanley McChrystal’s manifesto last summer, is failing. Counter Punch More of the Same, Packaged as Change Barack Obama and Afghanistan By MARC HEROLD August 6, 2008 And how will this victory over radical Islam be accomplished? Obama’s recipe for success involves: Sending 2-3 combat brigades (each of 3-5,000 troops) to Afghanistan; Pressure NATO allies to follow suit; More use of drones, aircraft, etc. ; Training Afghan “security” forces; Supporting an Afghan judiciary; Proposing an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year with safeguards to see no corruption and resources flowing to areas other than Kabul; Invest in alternative livelihoods to poppies; Pressure Pakistan to carry the fight into its tribal areas and reward it for so doing with military and non-military aid; Should Pakistan fail to act in the tribal areas, the United States under Obama would act unilaterally; New? Change? President George W. Bush and candidate McCain have long signed on to exactly these policies. Certainly both would also see Afghanistan primarily through the lens of “making America safer.” George Bush Sr. did just that during 1988-1990 when America was presumed safer once the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Then, he cut and ran. Dutch 1st NATO Member to Quit Afghanistan By AP / ROBERT H. REID Sunday, Aug. 01, 2010 (KABUL, Afghanistan) — The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government. Try again.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
08-13-2010, 02:39 AM
Your not understanding what I'm saying. While you are correct in reguards to leeway ground commanders have in battlefield operations. The playing field is set by the president's policy. Yes, they are mostly following Bush's, but there have been changes. The president establishes the playing field's bounderies. The military establishes the rules of engagement with in that playing field. The president is commander in chief that the military has to obey, experianced or not.
Over all policy is set by the civilians. Iraq became a nightmare after 2003 because the civilian Bremmer, ordered the Iraqi army disbanded, the military had to carry out it's orders. Thus years of constant struggle ensued from the 2million now unemployed, armed, ex soldiers. Afganistan is becomeing a qwagmire because we are not approaching it correctly. It's not Iraq and never will be, a working government is a pipe dream in this area. Too many tribes with too many differences historically. So policy is what is the problem, and that can only be changed by the civilians in Washington. The military does not have the authority to alter current state department policy. They may change statagies in reguards to how to implament policy but that's it.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
sorta wrong again -
08-13-2010, 06:10 AM
wrong again dude.
The policy in Afghanistan has not changed. Obama is a new face on a old policy. Counter Punch More of the Same, Packaged as Change Barack Obama and Afghanistan By MARC HEROLD August 6, 2008 New? Change? President George W. Bush and candidate McCain have long signed on to exactly these policies. Certainly both would also see Afghanistan primarily through the lens of “making America safer.” George Bush Sr. did just that during 1988-1990 when America was presumed safer once the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Then, he cut and ran. January 28, 2010 The Latest March of Folly Obama Put Politics First on Afghanistan By RAY McGOVERN Nothing highlights President Obama’s abject surrender to Gen. David Petraeus on the “way forward” in Afghanistan than two cables U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, the texts of which were released Tuesday by the New York Times. Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired Army Lt. General who served three years in Afghanistan over the course of two separate tours of duty, was responsible during 2002-2003 for rebuilding Afghan security forces. He then served 18 months (2005-2007) as commander of all U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan. Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. The last time the United States Congress ( civilians ) actually declared a war was in WW2 -Dec 7, 1941'. Since then the national security state has become permanently ascendant. The United States has engaged in numerous wars and interventions , unilaterally without any consideration or a hic up over Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which - vests in the Congress the 'exclusive power to declare war'. - source for Obama policy in Afghanistan? - source for foriegn policy different from that of a 'national security state' ?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
