Let’s have a nice war

Who should choose what a civilian is? Should it be the enemy or normal standards? Should enemy combatants be able to fire from bunkers until they run out of ammo then toss their weapons away and walk out to another weapons cash and be considered unarmed civilians until they are seen holding a weapon. That is what the Ruling Regime seems to be requiring. Troops in the coalition including American enlisted have complained that the latest offensive is being hindered by the new rules. Minimizing civilian casualties is right, smart, and important in the long run. Defeating those who would enslave and kill civilians is equally important. Weakness costs lives.
But Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, commander of Afghan army troops in the south, said there is no plan to revise the rules. “The aim of the operation is not to kill militants,” he said. “The aim is to protect civilians and bring in development.”
Read more about President Obama’s nice war.

11 thoughts on “Let’s have a nice war”

  1. As a proud part of the “ruling regime” (also known in the United States of America as the “the voters”) I think making a science out of counterinsurgency is a good thing. General McChrystal, the brains behind the new emphasis on less killing more peace, says we have “a new government in a box” already to set up services in the city of Marjah as soon as the bad guys are vanquished.

    General McChrystal’s battle plan included an unprecedented advance warning to civilians over two weeks telling them that a major attack was coming. We are starting to learn what makes people tick over there. The General all but gave them the time and date so they could plan to get out of the way. It has been determined by years of war, along with careful study by U.S. intelligence, that Afgan fighters and tribal leaders are in it for money, not for Islam. So we started an ambitious program to do the obvious – pay the fighters more to be friends than the Taliban pays them to be our enemies. General McChrystal is highly regarded by all. He is the one saying counterinsurgency is chess not checkers. It is measure by how much peace there is, not by how many bodies are stacked.

    There is conclusive proof that civilian casualties are the single greatest force multiplier for the enemy. One innocent father killed yields six vengeful sons. David is stuck in the 1960’s drooling for big piles of dead bodies. Kill anybody that looks like they deserve killing. That’s how a real man does it. That’s as thoughtless as calling your own government a ruling regime.

    It is ironic that so many self proclaimed fervently patriotic bible loving Christians like David cannot satisfy their blood lust. Not only is David wiser than our field commanders, more American than our President, he disrespects our Government with words most Americans reserve only for our enemies.

  2. You didn’t read much of the post or follow the link did you? It is hard to respond seriously to a knee jerk response.

    I have been supportive of the General, but we know that these rules went through the political wing of the ruling regime. If they are the design of the general, they are a mistake. We can not let enemy combatants shoot at us then throw their weapons down, come out of the bunker from where we just received fire and go to the next bunker, pick up weapons and start firing. They did not become civilians because they put the weapon down for a minute or hide it. That is stupid. McChyrstal is too smart to design it.

    The general concept of avoiding civilian casualties is one that is in the best of our traditions. Who does not support that? My question is one that you avoided at all costs. Who defines what a civilian is the International standards or the Taliban?

  3. The rules of engagement have to support the desired result. If it is to not kill militants the rules are just right. If it is to kill militants then the rules must change, you can’t have it both ways.

    The desire for ‘blood lust’ has nothing to do with the reality of wining and losing.

    Mike Protack

  4. What happens when the Taliban disappears from Afghanistan and shows-up in Yemen..or Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria, Libya and so on? Do we chase them around the planet? Forever?

    We should focus on all components of border and internal security. I couldn’t care less about Afghanistan.

  5. David – “That is stupid. McChyrstal is too smart to design it.” Please. This is General McChystal’s strategy. His tactics. He tightened the rules of engagement. It’s all over the paper and the internet.

    “At a briefing with field commanders Monday, top allied commander U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal stressed the importance of getting the word out that a rocket that killed 12 civilians on Sunday hadn’t missed its target, as previously reported, but hit a house from which coalition soldiers were taking fire. It was the type of incident Gen. McChrystal has sought to avoid by tightening the rules of engagement, a move that has sharply reduced the overall level of civilian casualties.”


    That message was drilled into the troops in the run-up to the offensive. “What are we here for?” Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the top Marine commander in Afghanistan, would shout to his troops. “The people!” was the troops’ refrain.

  6. Now that even active officers and retired Generals are saying the same thing that I did, are you prepared to revise and extend your remarks?

  7. What do you want me to say? My criticism of your original post would not have been as sharp had you not referred to General McChrystal as part of a “ruling regime”. That is the way we address thug governments like Iran. Ruling regime is the way our enemies refer to us. You are either with us or against us David. We are in a war. When you publish anti-American comments, you have to expect good God fearing pro-Americans to answer back in kind.

  8. I did not say criticizing was anti-American. I said referring to our military tactics, General McChrystal and our Commander In Chief as “the ruling regime” is anti-American. Maybe David can join the Taliban, get together to discuss ways to overturn the “ruling regime” in America. Rarely have I heard people refer to the Government of the United States as a “ruling regime”. From the communists during Vietnam, Bin Laden and Al Quaeda call us that, and now from David.

  9. The left and their operatives in the ‘mainstream’ media used ‘regime change’ quite often during Kerry’s campaign against Bush in ’04. The implication was that the ’00 election was ‘illegal,’ and thus, it wasn’t the ‘Bush administration’ but the ‘Bush regime.’

  10. Rick, not cool for either side. I don’t want to see Delaware Politics sink into that slim. Chavez called The United States Government a ruling regime too. Bin Laden. John Kerry said we need a regime change in the United States. Now David.
    Maybe it’s not that big a deal . . but for me it is not patriotic.

    “Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday . . . ‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.”

    Do we really want to be like that?

Comments are closed.