Why we are losing the war on terror via AP story

[ProfJohn]

Is it any wonder why we are losing?

U.S. military investigates leaked photo

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Wednesday it is looking into the unauthorized release of a photo purportedly taken by an American drone aircraft showing scores of Taliban militants at a funeral in Afghanistan.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by the Predator drone, but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

Lt. Tamara Lawrence, a spokeswoman with the U.S. military in Kabul, said the photograph was released to NBC by someone who did not have the clearance to hand it out.

The grainy black and white photo shows what NBC says are some 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.

NBC had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying "we were so excited" that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.

Sure lets invesigate who leaked the photo and give them a medal for showing the stupidity of our rules of engagement.

full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_...fGRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

 

[Zebo]

Exactly why we will lose.. The war profiteeers are getting rich though so all is not lost.

Don't fret, Join the party

 

[jpeyton]

Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

:laugh:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

Interesting comment about the original post.

If you can't refute the message...

Back to the original post:

It's a shame we have to find a war with at least one hand tied behind our collective back. Makes me wonder why we try in the first place.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

Interesting comment about the original post.

If you can't refute the message...

Back to the original post:

It's a shame we have to find a war with at least one hand tied behind our collective back. Makes me wonder why we try in the first place.

Refute what? We made those rules of engagement.

Why didn't the drone just wait until the Taliban fighters left the cemetary?

 

[amish]

that particular part of the ROE is not stupid. think of how the locals and worldwide muslims would feel about us crashing (i.e. obliterating) a religious service?

i would rather win the hearts and minds of the locals and then take out the trash once the service was over. somebody else said that previously and its a good idea.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

Interesting comment about the original post.

If you can't refute the message...

Back to the original post:

It's a shame we have to find a war with at least one hand tied behind our collective back. Makes me wonder why we try in the first place.

You are just not used to lossing the argument!

 

[sandorski]

ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why does a Professor spell 'losing' with an extra 's'?

Interesting comment about the original post.

If you can't refute the message...

Back to the original post:

It's a shame we have to find a war with at least one hand tied behind our collective back. Makes me wonder why we try in the first place.

Refute what message, that some pic that is now pulled is the reason we are losing? The good guys always fight a more honorable war than the bad guys. Of course you guys on the right always want to sink to the level of the terrorist. We are supposed to be better than them. We are not supposed to behead, torture, kill civilians, bomb weddings and funerals, etc. If you want to join al Queda, I'm sure they have room for more extremist nutjobs.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

yes, you are right we do have the ability to get soldiers damn near anywhere at any time. big problem is that this was a target of opportunity. there was no planning. sure we could drop some rangers, SFs, or 10th mountain they might get there in time and they would do a great job. but the problem with that is how are you going to support them and then bring them back?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: amish
that particular part of the ROE is not stupid. think of how the locals and worldwide muslims would feel about us crashing (i.e. obliterating) a religious service?

i would rather win the hearts and minds of the locals and then take out the trash once the service was over. somebody else said that previously and its a good idea.

I hate to break this to you but no matter what we say, no matter what we do even if it is nothing, we will NEVER win the hearts and minds of thiose that wish to see us fall.

#1 reason: We were instrumental in the creation and support of the state of Isreal.

Right or wrong is not the point, (you cannot turn back the hands of time) that alone will forver taint the muslim extremist view of our nation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

yes, you are right we do have the ability to get soldiers damn near anywhere at any time. big problem is that this was a target of opportunity. there was no planning. sure we could drop some rangers, SFs, or 10th mountain they might get there in time and they would do a great job. but the problem with that is how are you going to support them and then bring them back?

See, that's the problem. Who needs plans? Seriously, find enemy, scramble troops into waiting choppers, fly to area, drop off troops, fight. Risky, you bet, but that just goes with the job of killing/being killed. Support might not be possible, retreival is as simple as reversal of how you got them there.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: amish
that particular part of the ROE is not stupid. think of how the locals and worldwide muslims would feel about us crashing (i.e. obliterating) a religious service?

i would rather win the hearts and minds of the locals and then take out the trash once the service was over. somebody else said that previously and its a good idea.

Well said.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Wow! It must be really cool that our sensors on drones can now identify bad guys. Man, 190 targets, and they scanned them all and identified them as bad guys. Pretty impressive. Otherwise, I might have thought there were some innocent civilians attending the funeral of a friend, neighbor, or relative.

I wonder if it makes any difference in outcome by whose god gets to sort out the dead.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Is it any wonder why we are lossing?

U.S. military investigates leaked photo

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Wednesday it is looking into the unauthorized release of a photo purportedly taken by an American drone aircraft showing scores of Taliban militants at a funeral in Afghanistan.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by the Predator drone, but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

Lt. Tamara Lawrence, a spokeswoman with the U.S. military in Kabul, said the photograph was released to NBC by someone who did not have the clearance to hand it out.

The grainy black and white photo shows what NBC says are some 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.

NBC had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying "we were so excited" that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.

Sure lets invesigate who leaked the photo and give them a medal for showing the stupidity of our rules of engagement.

full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_...fGRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

At least you can't blame this on Clinton, although I'm sure you'll figure out a way to try.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

yes, you are right we do have the ability to get soldiers damn near anywhere at any time. big problem is that this was a target of opportunity. there was no planning. sure we could drop some rangers, SFs, or 10th mountain they might get there in time and they would do a great job. but the problem with that is how are you going to support them and then bring them back?

See, that's the problem. Who needs plans? Seriously, find enemy, scramble troops into waiting choppers, fly to area, drop off troops, fight. Risky, you bet, but that just goes with the job of killing/being killed. Support might not be possible, retreival is as simple as reversal of how you got them there.

It would still take time to get the troops ready, load them up and get them there. A typical Predator can has a range of 454 miles so those guys could have been 100-200 miles away from any military base. Now a Blackhawk has a maximum speed of 222 MPH so it would have take at least half an hour in the air to get there, plus time to load up etc. Also a Blackhawk only carries 14 troops, so they would need at least 15 or more of them just to equal the number of Taliban fighters on the ground. Is any of this sinking in?
I am sure that if they had sent a large group this way and it results in deaths of a few dozen soldiers sandorski would be one of the first to say how our policy is a failure.

On the other hand, one or two missiles and a couple dozen less taliban walking around. Plus a whole bunch more who will be spending a lot of time looking to the sky wondering when the next missile is going to land. You could call it our own terror tactic.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

yes, you are right we do have the ability to get soldiers damn near anywhere at any time. big problem is that this was a target of opportunity. there was no planning. sure we could drop some rangers, SFs, or 10th mountain they might get there in time and they would do a great job. but the problem with that is how are you going to support them and then bring them back?

See, that's the problem. Who needs plans? Seriously, find enemy, scramble troops into waiting choppers, fly to area, drop off troops, fight. Risky, you bet, but that just goes with the job of killing/being killed. Support might not be possible, retreival is as simple as reversal of how you got them there.

It would still take time to get the troops ready, load them up and get them there. A typical Predator can has a range of 454 miles so those guys could have been 100-200 miles away from any military base. Now a Blackhawk has a maximum speed of 222 MPH so it would have take at least half an hour in the air to get there, plus time to load up etc. Also a Blackhawk only carries 14 troops, so they would need at least 15 or more of them just to equal the number of Taliban fighters on the ground. Is any of this sinking in?
I am sure that if they had sent a large group this way and it results in deaths of a few dozen soldiers sandorski would be one of the first to say how our policy is a failure.

On the other hand, one or two missiles and a couple dozen less taliban walking around. Plus a whole bunch more who will be spending a lot of time looking to the sky wondering when the next missile is going to land. You could call it our own terror tactic.

There you go. It seems quite apparent the kind of constraints there are, so "planning" isn't really the issue. Risk aversion is the issue. Here's all the planning needed:

1) have troops/choppers ready to go within minutes anywhere/anytime

2) use them when needed

Funerals take time, 30 minutes is plenty of time to show up. I doubt missiles are going to be much of a terror tactic, at least not anymore than anything else that's out to get them.

 

[conjur]

Uh, FYI, the Taliban is not listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Dept.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROEs exist for a reason. That said, sounds like an attack was perfectly acceptable after the funeral. Why not attack then?

I keep reading, from certain members, how the military's hands are tied and there's too much pussy footing around. They usually mean it as "the military isn't being allowed to take it to the enemy", but that's not really the problem. The problem isn't the Military being easy on the enemy, it is the Military trying to be easy on itself. Every single death of a US(or other NATO member nation) is a major tragedy and has serious consequences back home(respective coountries).

So a Drone finds a large group of Taliban, but the group can't be fired upon for some ROE. At the risk of second guessing, but WTF is the problem? The US Army has at its' disposal the technology to transport significant forces great distances in short periods of time. If the will existed, the area could have been crawling with US/NATO forces by the time the funeral was finished.

Why wasn't it? Quite possibly because not enough manpower is available due to being stretched thin, but I also think the Military has become very wary of risk.

yes, you are right we do have the ability to get soldiers damn near anywhere at any time. big problem is that this was a target of opportunity. there was no planning. sure we could drop some rangers, SFs, or 10th mountain they might get there in time and they would do a great job. but the problem with that is how are you going to support them and then bring them back?

See, that's the problem. Who needs plans? Seriously, find enemy, scramble troops into waiting choppers, fly to area, drop off troops, fight. Risky, you bet, but that just goes with the job of killing/being killed. Support might not be possible, retreival is as simple as reversal of how you got them there.

It would still take time to get the troops ready, load them up and get them there. A typical Predator can has a range of 454 miles so those guys could have been 100-200 miles away from any military base. Now a Blackhawk has a maximum speed of 222 MPH so it would have take at least half an hour in the air to get there, plus time to load up etc. Also a Blackhawk only carries 14 troops, so they would need at least 15 or more of them just to equal the number of Taliban fighters on the ground. Is any of this sinking in?
I am sure that if they had sent a large group this way and it results in deaths of a few dozen soldiers sandorski would be one of the first to say how our policy is a failure.

On the other hand, one or two missiles and a couple dozen less taliban walking around. Plus a whole bunch more who will be spending a lot of time looking to the sky wondering when the next missile is going to land. You could call it our own terror tactic.

Yes, those sound like tactical problems that I have every confidence our bright men and women in uniform can overcome. This bitching about the rules every time on of them gets in the way at all speaks of lazy thinking and poor planning, I'm sure glad YOU aren't the one coming up with the battle plans. Or maybe you (or people like you) ARE, that's why we're still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting the same damn groups we were fighting when we got there. Whatever the case, just throwing your hands up because the rules stop you from doing the first thing that pops into your mind is NOT acceptable in any job in the world, why would it be acceptable here, where the rules are arguably MORE important?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: amish
that particular part of the ROE is not stupid. think of how the locals and worldwide muslims would feel about us crashing (i.e. obliterating) a religious service?

i would rather win the hearts and minds of the locals and then take out the trash once the service was over. somebody else said that previously and its a good idea.

I hate to break this to you but no matter what we say, no matter what we do even if it is nothing, we will NEVER win the hearts and minds of thiose that wish to see us fall.

#1 reason: We were instrumental in the creation and support of the state of Isreal.

Right or wrong is not the point, (you cannot turn back the hands of time) that alone will forver taint the muslim extremist view of our nation.

Who's talking about "Muslim extremists"? Believe it or not, but not everyone (not even most people) in Muslim countries wishes to see us fall or hates our nation beyond any hope of redemption. A large number, probably even a majority, IMHO, COULD be on our side if we made some effort to get them there. But for all the ways we can do that, doing things like blowing up funerals pretty much means it's certain that the Muslim extremists will continue to dominate the discourse over there.

 

[Balt]

I would say we are losing the "War on Terror" because we are creating more terrorists than we are eliminating.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Balt
I would say we are losing the "War on Terror" because we are creating more terrorists than we are eliminating.

Can you prove that with any kind of evidence?
I am wondering if this could just be an Urban Myth, or does Al Qeada release recruitment goals and figures?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Balt
I would say we are losing the "War on Terror" because we are creating more terrorists than we are eliminating.

Can you prove that with any kind of evidence?
I am wondering if this could just be an Urban Myth, or does Al Qeada release recruitment goals and figures?

See, and that's the problem, Balt can't prove we're creating more than we are killing, and you can't prove we're killing more than we are creating...in other words, we have NO metrics for the war on terror, and we have no idea of the progress we are making (or not making).

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

We killed millions in S.E. Asia and still failed to achieve our objective.
What gives anyone confidence that killing even millions in the M.E. would achieve anything positive?