Jun 25 2010

Thank You General Petraeus!

Published by at 1:35 pm under All General Discussions

With my US Marine son heading to Afghanistan at some time in the near future, I can already see the direct benefits of McChrystal’s sacrifice to the war fighter and war effort:

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.

Thank you General Petraeus!  God bless you.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Thank You General Petraeus!”

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Thank You General Petraeus! http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13650 [...]

  2. lurker9876 says:

    It depends on how he modifies it.

    Another good thing is that Petreaus has invited Michael Yon to be embedded once again.

  3. oldguy says:

    Good for Petraeous! If, in fact he brings Yon back onto the scene, it’s a very good sign.

  4. tarpon says:

    It’s always the details ….

  5. kathie says:

    MSM says that Obama was brilliant to appoint General Petraeous.

    I say thank you General Petraeous for taking a demotion and stepping up for our fighting men and woman and for our country. You took one for us and we thank you, God Bless you.

  6. stevevvs says:

    Wow, I’m so sorry he is going there. I wish him a safe return!

    Petraeus to Modify McChrystal’s Restrictive Rules of Engagment [Andy McCarthy]

    Assuming this is true — as reported in the NY Post (via Fox News) — all to the good. (See, e.g., Byron’s recent reporting on the RoE here). CNN’s report says only that Gen. Petraeus will “review” the RoE, not that he’s committed to modifying them.

    But I do think it’s worth noting that, as commander of CENTCOM, Gen. Petraeus was Gen. McChrystal’s boss. The RoE have been very controversial for a long time (see, e.g., this Ralph Peters column, bracingly entitled, “The rules murdering our troops”). If Petraeus thought the RoE needed to be changed or at least reviewed, why hasn’t that been done before now?

  7. W-GIRL08 says:

    WHAT IF ………..

    This whole affair was a Pentagon set up ??

    It was apparent that Stan McChrystal (Obama’s man) was failing in Afghanistan and he had a 7/2011 deadline that he wasn’t going to meet. The ROE doesn’t make sense coming from a guy like Stan (being a soldier’s general). The ROE sounds more like an Obama (Nobel Peace Prize) idiotic notion that Stan was somehow pushed to accept (maybe by Jones, Holbrook, Biden, Eikenberry). It seems like the ROE was having a significant effect on the ground troops who were not meeting their time table and the Pentagon knew it.

    Obama was never invested in the Afghan War. It was a thorn in his side from the beginning (another Bush problem he had to fix). It went against his “Nobel” image on the World stage and his Muslim leanings. He took a long time in committing “some” troops but immediately put a time table (a very stupid move – setting it up for failure). Let’s face it, would it surprise anyone if come 7/2011, Obama would have said ….we tried, it didn’t work and the soldiers are coming home. War weary Americans & the Left would applaud Obama and give him a good head start for the 2012 election.

    But, after 10 years would the Pentagon be able to accept another Vietnam style DEFEAT ? I think the Pentagon worked too hard in Iraq and Afghanistan to see the Afghan War go down in an Obama Flaming Shame. Therefore ……………..

    The Pentagon knew Stan had a big mouth. I am sure Stan’s feelings & fustrations with the Obama Adminstration were not only known to his subordinates but by the Pentagon higher ups too. So the Pentagon planted the RS journalist to do their dirty work. Does anyone know anything about this RS journalist ? Could he have come from the Pentagon or was he just another Bob Woodward with a Pentagon deep throat ? Or maybe Stan was part of the deal ?

    The story sure did take off like a wild fire and sure did get dosed real fast with the appointment of General Patraeus. Did the Pentagon take Obama off the hot seat by offering up Patraeus as a replacement ? Would Obama have thought of Patraeus on his own …..the general he lectured over the Iraq surge & never could admit that the surge succeeded. Let’s face it, Obama came off pretty good in this whole affair. Does anyone think “the incompetent one” did this on his own & so fast ?

    I believe it was all a PENTAGON deal !! They set up Obama and maybe set up McChrystal maybe not. McChrystal has been pretty silent since this all blew up in his face. With Patraeus in there now ……Obama will have to extend the deadline, fund the War and will have to send more troops !! Patraeus will END the ROE. So who comes out the real winner ……….the PENTAGON & the War Effort !!

    Obama is an incompentent big FOOL with a BIG EGO. This week, the Pentagon made him a “strong” decisive President & Leader (first time) ……….but he GOT PLAYED !!

    Just think, the Pentagon’s job is about defeating the enemy …and in this case who was the bigger enemy ? The Tolly-E-Bon or Nobel Obama ?

    God Bless Our Troops and the Pentagon !!!!!!!

  8. crosspatch says:

    AJ, I saw this linked from Instapundit, you might want to have a read:

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/06/28/the-side-effects-of-the-afghanistan-rules-of-engagement/

    Many Afghans are not happy with this policy, with foreign troops increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that NATO act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk. This is an unexpected side effect to the change in NATO rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. The ROE change was partly in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders have to decide who they shall respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do? So far, the decision often favors the survival of the Taliban.

    Unexpected? This was only unexpected among dolts. I said as much ten months ago (“officials” have admitted that the new Afghanistan ROE have opened up new space for the insurgents”), nine months ago (“the Taliban will surround themselves with noncombatants, in the end making it more dangerous for everyone”), eight months ago (“giving the insurgents safe haven amongst the domiciles of villages sends the opposite message than we intend”), seven months ago (“give chase to and kill the enemy as the surest way to win the hearts and minds of the locals, and thus win the campaign”), and four months ago (“I had predicted that these rules would have the opposite affect from that intended, i.e., that they would fail to prevent noncombatant deaths and might even cause more than if we were to implement a more robust set of ROE or simply leave the rules unchanged”).