moonbattery.gif


« Old Slime Gets a New Bottle | Main | Obama's Approval Index Goes Negative »


June 22, 2009

What If Moonbats Ran a War?

Moonbat insanity has now guaranteed that terrorists fighting our troops in Afghanistan will hide behind civilians:

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday. …
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed.

Maybe he got the idea from Chairman Zero measuring his economic performance by the fictional number of "jobs saved."

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

No doubt liberals will praise this enlightened policy, which will level the playing field by allowing Taliban terrorists to kill without fear of consequence, so long as they take cover behind the skirts of civilians.

On a tip from Franco.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 22, 2009 8:59 AM

Comments

thank god the "adults" are in charge now

Posted by: weewilly at June 22, 2009 9:07 AM

Fuck it! I never thought I'd say this but rather than lose one more American so some towelhead can beat the shit out of his sister or wife for talking to the mailman, let's just pack up our shit and leave! It just ain't worth it!
Hitler is pulling his hair out! 'I was born 70 years too soon'!!!!

Posted by: Shooter1001 at June 22, 2009 9:18 AM

This nonsense started with Bush and the "Religion of Peace". Get the troops out of the Middle East now before these morons get another 3000+ killed.

Posted by: oldguy at June 22, 2009 9:22 AM

Nice going Bam Bam. You've just telegraphed to every jihadi in Afghanistan that you won't shoot if they take civilian hostages.

Posted by: V the K at June 22, 2009 9:24 AM

Reminds me of another war that the dems ran a number of years ago where the US forces were not allowed to chase the enemy across a certain border into....where was it...central asia or sumthin?
It all seems so familiar....

Posted by: Rob at June 22, 2009 9:26 AM

It's official, surrender is now pretty much an official policy of the war in Afghanistan...

Posted by: Jim at June 22, 2009 10:10 AM

towards the end of the Vietnam war the liberals were so worried that we might kill innocent civilians that the troops were prohibited from firing unless the Viet Cong fired first.

then to protect the "innocent bystanders" even more, the troops were ordered to go on patrol with unloaded guns. they could only load & fire if fired on first.........

Posted by: blue at June 22, 2009 10:14 AM

>"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take.">

Since running away would only encourge the bastards to KEEP FIGHTING, this policy poses "...undue danger to the forces..." AND to civilians in the area. So commanders should order SATURATION BOMBINGS as it would reduce the threat to troops and civilians from the muslims.

Letter of the law, my frineds.

Posted by: KHarn at June 22, 2009 10:37 AM

Looks similar to the policy the moonbats want Israel to adapt for Palestine. It should come as no suprise to anyone here that moonbats think terrorists using civilians as sheilds is nothing but a fable made up by stupid, warmongering right-wing radicals out to kill everyone they see.

Posted by: Eric at June 22, 2009 10:40 AM

8 years, thousands of dead american soldiers, countless innocent civilians, an institutionalized policy of torture, etc.

...Osama Bin laden still a free man...

Is that how Conservatives run a war? Lots of dead people, little success?

Posted by: wingnutcracker at June 22, 2009 10:42 AM

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell.
– General William Tecumseh Sherman

Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2009 10:45 AM

Why can't Plugs "watch their back." Even better: we send in Obamacorps brown shirts to be human shields for the murderous jihadists in lieu of Iraqi civillians. Lock and unload Marines.

Posted by: LeftistsforShields at June 22, 2009 11:15 AM

Free elections in Iraq and now freedom-loving youths standing up to the mullahs while being shot at.
Thats how a conservatives run a war.
wingnuter, your mom said to get back in the basement

Posted by: JamesJ at June 22, 2009 11:15 AM

If moonbats ran a war we would all sit down with the terrorts and smoke wacky weed from a hooka and eating granola and sipping wine coolers

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at June 22, 2009 11:23 AM

It was the LIBERALS who encouraged the terrorists and kept this war going for years, just like in Viet Nam.

Sherman was insane, by the way.

Posted by: KHarn at June 22, 2009 11:36 AM

wingnutcracker:
Capitalize the "A", when you write America, asshole.
Liberal lickspittles like yourself can't even give the country enough respect to do that, you did however capitalize Osama Bin Laden, most likely out of cultural respect you dumb meat puppet.

Posted by: xantl at June 22, 2009 1:54 PM

Once again, my nuts are tickled by the nutlicker as he provides another dispatch from Looneyland.

I guess World War II was also a waste of men and lives because despite beating Germany and Japan, the mastermind behind Pearl Harbor --- Admiral Yamamoto --- was never captured and brought to justice.

Posted by: V the K at June 22, 2009 2:30 PM

wingnut, good name choice btw.

I heard PIAPS bitchin about how Osama, a 6' Moslem can't be caught after all this time.

Well? WTF is he?? You clowns don't even know what country he's in! He probably shaved, got a tan and joined ACORN.
Hillary can't find him, she couldn't manage to get laid in Guantanamo with a box full of presidential pardons!

Posted by: Shooter1001 at June 22, 2009 3:24 PM

mootbats did run a war... two of them!

how's things in Iraq and gannystan going?

yeah, that's what I thought.

Posted by: sauerkraut at June 22, 2009 3:46 PM

Um... I thought YOU guys were running those wars now, sauerkraut. Jeez, watch something other than the Daily Show... you might notice that it's ALL ON YOU now, baby.

Posted by: hiram at June 22, 2009 4:42 PM

Well, Shooter 1001, as every moonbat knows... Osama Bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world and so if we concentrated all our effort into capturing him and... I don't know, sending him to Bermuda or something ... it would be the end of ALL TERRORISM FOREVER!!!

Posted by: V the K at June 22, 2009 4:53 PM

What we see here with Schwingnut-Whacker and his salty pal Saurekraut is a regurgitation of the usual Leftist talking points...."The war's a total failure, it's a quagmire, it's another Viet Nam (the REAL Viet Nam wasn't even the "Viet Nam" of pop culture), why can't we catch Osama Bin Laden", etc.

Here's the straight-up on Osama Bin Laden, goofballs: we may not WANT to reel him in yet.

This is not a conventional war like World War Two, where you are dealing with a centralized military / industrial government, and you knock out the enemy's command and control, go after their communications, infrastructure, means of production, etc. In this manner you destroy from the center out.

With OBL and Al Qaeda, the opposite is true. You're dealing with a loosely connected and diverse network spread out across a dozen or so countries. In this case, you need to keep the network intact, and monitor how the information flows and the logistics work. You then roll it up from the edges....which is what we are doing. If you take out the Command/Control/Communications, the network comes apart into a whole bunch of cells that will still try to act independently, and/or regroup into another organizational structure that we will again have to figure out and penetrate.

I'm willing to bet we have a pretty good idea of where he is, and he'll stay there until he's no longer of value to us.

As for OEF / OIF being a "failure", you're out of your freakin' minds. This was the most successful military operation in human history.

With a relatively limited number of troops, we quickly projected our power halfway around the world, freed 50 million people, and set the stage for a major and permanent geopolitical shift towards freedom.

We did all this with fewer American casualties in six years than we lost at Iwo Jima. There was far less collateral damage than anyone said was possible, and most of the civilian casualties were actually caused by the enemy. We also did it all for a lower percentage of GDP than any other war we ever fought.

Failure? You're kidding, right?

Posted by: TonyD95B at June 22, 2009 5:53 PM

As for OEF / OIF being a "failure", you're out of your freakin' minds. This was the most successful military operation in human history.

The left hates the military, therefore the military can never be given credit for anything.

Posted by: V the K at June 22, 2009 6:59 PM

good comments tony

Posted by: Joe Nen at June 22, 2009 8:22 PM

If moonbats had run WW II we would all be under a FURER but with OBAMA we havea FURER

Posted by: Flu-Bird at June 22, 2009 9:13 PM

3:00 a.m. White House. President's bedroom 7-19-10

Situation Phone ringing.

M'chelle O: BO, get dat dam phone.
BO: Uhh, ahh, bbuttbuttbuutu, you see ahh ZZZZZZZZZZZ.
M'chelle O: Get you ass up fool, get dat phone.
BO: Yo my sweetie. Ahh, yes, who'se it? Ahh, Sen. Clinton what ahh, ahh, are you calling about, do you uhh realize, let me see its 3 am and you think I'm really ready for this. See I was dreamin' I had all the guns and bibles locked up, and Rush Limbo in Sing Sing. Ok, what is it. You don't say, ahh, so the Taliban has taken some Afghan civillians hostage, and we've got them cornered in a mosque. Ok, have they made a ransom demand. Yes, I see. Well, have they been read their Miranda rights, and, ahh, Hillary they need to have access to the ACLU and Obamacorps. Yes, yes, use Nancy's jet to fly them to Kabul on my executive order. Ok. Where do they want the money delivered. Ok.
M'chelle: {dreaming} For the first time in my adult life .... ZZZZZ ..... He's gonna change it, and rearrange it, Obama's gonna change the world. ZZZZZZZZZZZ.
BO: Yes, and ahh, can we use one of Jack's earmarks from the stimulus to ahh, trade them some gold plated footbath's for the hostages? .... Why yes its shovel ready plan. No, I didn't get that info from Plugs, I just read it off of TOTUS.

Posted by: GhostofJournalism at June 22, 2009 9:31 PM

Pull out now. Its not worth the life of one American soldier if you aren't going to fight to win.

Its Obama's war now. Its his defeat.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 22, 2009 9:52 PM

Folks, this is what I posted over at Blackfive on the very same subject:

General McChrystal is playing a very smart game of counterinsurgency. He understands the Afghan culture--particularly the ethical code of "Pashtunwali." Two of the major tenets of Pashtunwali are "Melmastia" and "Nanewati" which loosely translates into "hospitality" and "protection." The Afghan people--and the ethnic Pashtun in particular--will provide shelter and protection in their own homes for whoever asks for it. That includes the Taliban... and our people too.

Destroying houses and villages with Taliban in them because the locals won't turn them over is a quick way to turn the population against us. The center of gravity in this war--and any counterinsurgency for that matter--is the popular support of the people. In this case it is the Pashtun peoples, as the insurgency has not caught fire amongst the Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks or other ethic groups within the country.

Unlike in Iraq we enjoyed a tremendous wave of popularity amongst the Afghan people after we invaded. The Afghans hated (and still hate) the Taliban, and therefore welcomed us in with open arms. This has all changed within the last two years and our popularity with the people there has plummetted. Since we cannot hope to win if the people hate us, we have to get them on our side. And what the people there want more than anything right now is security--so McChrystal's metric of success may very well be spot on.

We can run around killing insurgents all day long but that will definitely not win the war for us. It didn't work in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan either. If we focus on killing bad guys while alienating the Afghan people we will eventually lose. Then we'll sit around like the Vietnam generation and bitch about how we won all the battles but lost the war. They lost because they didn't understand COIN. We've figured it out--it sure as hell took long enough--and now hopefully it's not too late to apply what we've learned.

If you look at the new FM 3-24 (Counterinsurgency), or more importantly read Bernard Fall, Sir Robert Thompson, Roger Trinquier or even Mao you'll see that protecting the populace and getting them to support you is critical.

McChrystal is applying COIN doctrine while tailoring it to the Afghan culture. He's also looking at it from a operational and strategic perspective... not tactical. And that's good, since that's what the man gets paid for.

Will we lose more people on the ground because of this adjustment to the ROE? Maybe. But I would argue its better to lose a few more men and women and win the war, rather than be casualty-adverse and lose it.

Now that may sound like a cold thing to say from a "Chairborne Monday Morning Quarterback," and it would be. So full disclosure--I will personally be over there humping the hills and working with the ANA in a few months time--and I still think McChrystal's policy is the smart play. I'm willing to put my own ass on the line, perfectly comfortable with this new ROE. It's up to guys like myself to figure out the tactical problems framed within the confines of guidance nested within the operational and strategic framework. And I'm cool with that.

Like Denzel Washington said in the movie Training Day... "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

Marcus

Posted by: Marcus at June 22, 2009 11:09 PM

Marcus: I have read FM 3-24, and you are correct in the assertion that the manual does caution towards a restrictive ROE to curtail excessive civilian casualties. It does not however say that a mission should be abandoned in order to keep civilian goodwill at maximum. Your scenario also ignores the point of an invasion: to impose your will upon both the civilian population and your enemy - you do not impose your will by making sure you are "loved" at all costs by those you wish to control. This doctrine change is foolhard, and it will tantamount to announcing on television that if hostages are taken during the commission of a crime that the Police will no longer pursue the criminals and then feigning surprise when every petty crime turns into a hostage situation.

Posted by: xantl at June 22, 2009 11:55 PM

Marcus:
How do you reconcile your beliefs in historical counter-insugency tactics supporting protecting the populace at all costs - with their recommendations of creating concentration camps to hold and relocate all military age males? The British Boar war literally gave us the term(s) concentration camp and it wasn't ever considered by the populace to be for their protection -- Mao also wrote about exploiting the population support from the other side (e.g terrorists) which have no burden to do so - unlike a modern military force.

Posted by: xantl at June 23, 2009 12:02 AM

xantl,

I thought the point of the invasion was to protect the United States against terrorist activity (Global War on Terror), not to impose our will on the population. In "Milspeak" that would translate to:

Task: Invade and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Purpose: To end terrorist activity aimed at the citizens of the United States of America.

Now I don't believe anywhere in McChrystal's policy does it call for "abandoning a mission." If just makes it clear that we will not be dropping JDAMs on houses in the middle of villages based upon receiving some small arms fire. There are a multitude of different ways to root out insurgents from a village. Many of them will avoid unnecessary collateral damage--which is what is being proposed. For example, McChrystal wants to limit the use of air power used in COIN. This is not a new idea--Sir Robert Thompson wrote about that very thing four decades ago in his writings on counterinsurgency. And he was one of the architects of the successful Malayan Emergency.

As far as the people "loving" us is concerned--that is also not being proposed. Support for the legitimate government based out of Kabul, but not love. Blowing up civilians by accident or shooting up their villages will certainly achieve neither.

Your police/hostage scenario is not accurate. We will not be abandoning the field to the enemy. Nor will we cease to pursue them. We just won't be dropping artillery rounds in villages to go after a handful of guys. Remember, the enemy does this on purpose to entice us into firing in the villages. When we do so we play right into their hands. Why let the enemy play us like that? We can beat them at their own game and we should.

I'm not sure that I understand your "concentration camp" argument. Sounds like a strawman to me, since I never advocated such a thing. But if you'd care to discuss it, I believe there are other historical examples to draw upon (Malayan Emergency, Vietnam's "Strategic Hamlet" program, etc.) that are more relevent.

Marcus

Posted by: Marcus at June 23, 2009 10:18 AM

Of course the point is to impose our will upon the civilian population as well as the enemy. Anytime a soldier patrols a foreign street they risk violence from nationalists or Taliban loyalists, and they also must be willing to police the population to our ethics; including suppression of beating women, extrajudicial executions and other activities that are common place in a society made up of tribalism and a prevalent seventh century religious mentality.
Your idea that our enemy entices us into killing civilians and "playing into their game" is simplistic in nature, there are times when killing civilians is a necessary evil: as was the accepted risk when U.S forces killed al-Zarqawi. There are many U.S ran programs that counter the assertion that civilians are deliberately targeted including medical programs, and infrastructure repair, while many Afghanis know that foreign fighters will execute them as soon as they enter their village, they do not build "bridges" with the civilian population like Hamas. My police analogy is spot on, the fact is now that enemies of the United States are aware that there are measures they can take to ensure they are not hit by air support, or artillery batteries. If you do not understand my question that historical COIN measures like concentration camps did not have popular support, and caused ill-will to the invading army but still allowed them victory I am unsure how better to frame it.

Posted by: xantl at June 23, 2009 3:14 PM

xantl,

First, the proper term for a person in Afghanistan is "Afghan" not "Afghani." The Afghani is the legal currency used in the country, not a term for its people.

Second, while I would agree that we are to impose our will I would not extend that into meddling in their cultural affairs. That would be suicidal to the mission. I would not for a minute impose western values on the Afghan people--such as telling them that their women should go around uncovered. Nothing would turn them against us faster--thus destroying everything we aim to accomplish. The legally elected government will establish laws (nested within their own code of ethics) for the country, and we will help them to enforce those laws. No matter if we find them distasteful or not. To do anything else is foolish and ultimately disastrous.

Third, my example of enticing our forces into a form of "baited ambush" may seem simplistic to you, but it is in fact reality and be practiced on the ground. I never said that the Taliban were sophisticates. And I never underestimate our own ability to screw up and blunder into obvious traps. These people have been fighting for thirty years straight... we are relative newcomers to the game.

Fourth, your police analogy is formed from a misinterpretation of the policy. I would urge you to look at it again... I don't think it implies what you think it does.

Lastly, I understand very well what you are saying in regards to "concentration camps." If you look at the Vietnamese application of this tactic (the Strategic Hamlet Program), you will find that it failed due to political and bureaucratic shortcomings of the South Vietnamese government. Thus, I would never recommend such a course of action in Afghanistan. The Afghan government (the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or GIRoA) does not have the proper architecture in place, nor the bureaucratic "reach" to properly administer such a program. Therefore I feel that it would be a tremendous failure. Obviously not a good fit for the country due to its political and cultural makeup. Would it work in another country such as say... Iran? Perhaps. But it wouldn't work in Afghanistan.

Regards,

Marcus

Posted by: Anonymous at June 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Firstly, you need to consult a dictionary:
Afghani \Afghani\ adj.
1. 1 a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan.
n. pl. Af·ghan·is
A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan; an Afghan.

You seem well indoctrinated into political correctness; maybe this is what you meant by the "proper term."
No one said impose Western values on them. Stopping women beatings and executions are a matter of upholding our law. This has always been the responsibility of an invading force - 1840 General Napier:
“If it is your custom to burn a widow alive, please go on,” Napier responded.
“We have a custom in our country that whoever burns a person alive shall be hanged. While you prepare the funeral pyre, my carpenters will be making the gallows to hang all of you. Let us all act according to our customs” The Brahmins thought better of it, and the widow lived.

The policy it to now only attack compounds for force protection, there are to be no attacks on any housing where civilians may be present - which part of that have I misinterpreted? The fact is, this now ensures that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will have safe houses and compounds full of hostages, or in the midsts of civilian areas - in order to ensure they are not bombed or targeted by drones.
The U.S have announced this policy to the world, it is now well known to our enemy who will now use it to their advantage - show me how that analogy is DIRECTLY flawed; e.g dissect it, not just say it is.

I'm not sure how you believe America is new to the game of fighting a war, or even COIN. So what these people have been taking pot shots at each other for thirty years? what do they have to show for it? a country full of ex-soviet hardware - there have been gangs clashing with small arms in the inner city of America for decades, does that make them masters of war too?

You do not understand my mention of concentration camps, because you act like I suggest it should be done - however I questioned your belief that every COIN tactic be made to ensure the greatest civilian support, however the imprisonment of military age males has been used to great success in the past - and the civilian populations didn't like it, or support it.


Posted by: xantl at June 24, 2009 10:25 AM