Posted by
thekeenobserver on Monday, November 02, 2009 5:36:26 PM
(QUOTE) "Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." - Winston Churchill
QUESTION: Is Commander-In-Sneak Obama setting us up another for another "Black Hawk Down" debacle?
Is the American public even aware of the rashly irresponsible orders he has issued to our "fighting" troops in Afghanistan - ordering them NOT to fire back - a prelude to certain decimation?
And worse - why is our lamestream media ignoring this outrage?
Recently, BBC television depicted a U.S. Marine hunkered down in Afghanistan, complaining that..." he was not allowed to shoot back when under fire;" a situation resulting from Obama’s new rules of engagement (ROE) .
Last July, General Stanley McChrystal explained the new ROEs to BBC news: (quote)..."We are now advising troops to break off from firefights with the Taliban...If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you MUST do so”...(unquote).
Remember the pacifist in "Saving Private Ryan" - insisting his squad let their German prisoner go, then later cowered as he watched the same Nazi kill his fellow Americans?
This is EXACTLY what our dearly-beloved anti-President is doing to our brave troops!
Yes, it's all the idea of our honorable Commander, Barack H. Obama, who has never spent a day in uniform - not even as a Boy Scout.
So why even bother with issuing such orders?
Why not just take away our soldiers' M4 rifles, and equip 'em with squirt guns? Or maybe they can suddenly appear, and shout "boo!" Better yet, use paintball rifles; that way, they can let those nasty Taliban dudes be aware that indeed, they're "marked men."
Meanwhile, month-after-month, the increasing casualties of our brave troops - fighting in this mountainous Afghan hell-hole -indicate no forseeable end in sight to the carnage.
Last July, patrolling Bravo Company Marines of the 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment in Nawa (Afghanistan) had surprised 40 Taliban insurgents, caught inside a suspicious-looking, isolated compound.
The Taliban immediately opened up with automatic weapons and rocket fire:
The Marines could have instantly wiped out the insurgents by calling in an air strike -patrolling overhead. Instead, they followed the "Obama Rules of Engagement" - show restraint. The result? One U.S. Marine dead, one wounded, and the Taliban insurgents escaping unharmed out the back door - undoubtedly laughing at the folly - emboldened and free to kill again.
Meanwhile, Obama is back in Dover, Delaware showing his "compassion" for 15 recently-arrived deceased troops; solemnly saluting their caskets - "deeply concerned" for the soldiers' grieving families.
But why did Obama drag along the cameras? Could not the entire 4 AM ceremony (travesty) have been done just as well in private?
Obama plays the political game; always thinking ahead; never caring about anything other than his own selfish ends - and how he can achieve them at the expense of others: in this case, 15 dead Marines, and three fallen DEA agents.
POINT: There never has been a modern war without civilian casualties. Trying to fight one - that the other side has zero civilian deaths - is impossible. And to require that our military obey those rules repeats the same mistake over and over again: US Marines dead...Taliban allowed to flee unharmed.
Lacking prior military experience, Obama is unaware that in ANY urban environment, civilians are present in almost all firefights. And his insipid rule only encourages the Taliban to hide amongst civilians - hence "the chance" of ALWAYS creating civilian casualties.
Think about it. Is this not tantamount to allowing the enemy to "fire at will", but requiring our soldiers to cower and take it?
And what about the horrid roadside bombs that continue to kill and maim our soldiers?
Does Obama not realize that Afghan "farmers" (camouflaged as such) can go about planting these devices at will - feigning as though they were doing road repairs, or even agiculture? What is this president thinking? Certainly not about the welfare of our troops!
Does he not seem more concerned with his Moslem "brother" enemy?
Is this not Vietnam revisited, where another fool democratic president callously played politics with the lives of our soldiers, refusing to give them the means to win?
This would otherwise be laughable, notwithstanding winning a war; and the life & death struggles of our American combatants.
Does not being President mean the responsibilty of the entire U.S. armed forces, the most powerful on earth? And yet we have what appears to be nothing other than a political and media circus.
Other than the Constitution, what qualifies this unfeeling man to be our Commander in Chief?
But then again, what did we expect? Our Muslim "President" protecting his Muslim brothers.
Not surprisingly, Germany has now been pressured to alter its ROE (Rules of Engagement) for its troops in Afghanistan. While the 3,400 German troops have always been restricted from seeking firefights, they are increasingly getting attacked by the Taliban- now aware of the new German ROE's, and taking full advantage of it.
And from a more recent BBC news story: (quote)..."the restrictive Rules Of Engagement have become a growing embarrassment for thousands of German soldiers arriving home, who had served in Afghanistan, and have continued to complain bitterly about those rules after returning."
Barack Obama is signing the death warrants of our troops with insanity such as this.
But why?
Is Obama deliberately trying to discourage the military through injury, and people not re-enlisting? What recruit would want to serve under a Commmander -in-Chief, not having his best interests at heart, who would side with the enemy rather than his own nation’s troops?
Is this yet another Democratic President who uses the military for his own aims, or to "make a statement?"
Sadly, our Founding Fathers should have included this one critical requirement in our Constitution: Article 10, Sec. 2..."Never having served in the armed forces, the newly-elected be not allowed to serve as President."
Ironically, could one have crafted a BETTER set of engagement rules to all but guarantee our troops are eventually killed, and the war could never be won? Shame on the Chiefs of Staff for approving them, let alone ordering our soldiers into harms way under them.
Could such an order be considered treasonous? Setting our troops up to maintain a defenseless presence, thereby allowing Obama to appease his Left? Hence, we have 20,000 troops conducting their missions with their hands tied. And Obama further jeopardizing them by deciding to either send - or not send - even more.
.
Indeed, all we hear is, "Not enough troops! Send more troops.” But if Obama finally does send more troops, what then? They will remain soldiers with no capacity to fight back, unless one can first PROVE whom it actually is before taking aim.
This is a recipe for disaster...a lose/lose situation for our soldiers. If they follow these directives, many more will die. If they do not follow them, many face Court Martial for failure to follow orders.
If this doesn't PROVE that Obama is an incompetent commander in chief, what does? Or does he harbor some insidious ulterior motive?
Once again..."The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." Is Obama deliberately ordering our troops into harms way, then to stand down and take it?
In all the annals of ancient and modern warfare, has there ever been a general who ordered his soldiers not to fire back? How long would he have remained in command? Would he not be rendered a laughing stock of history, similar to Neville Chamberlain?
One cannot help but arrive at the obvious conclusion: who's side is Obama on? Could this be grounds for an impeachable offense? What if Bush had acted in such reckless fashion?
Do the Marines have their weapons pointed at the wrong people?
Our internal enemies seem much more dangerous.