Moms Demand Action (©2014 MAIG) is reposting its latest “fauxrage”:
And the sad part is that they are somewhat right.
But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement.
Yes, they would like pretty much the application of Ask Questions First, Shoot Later (If you are alive by then) to Civilians while is clearly a stupid thing to do and being proven deadly in the battlefield.
Similarly no Taliban terrorist can be fired upon unless the one directing the fire is also willing to certify that no civilian will be harmed during the action. This is nonsense. The result is that it is not unusual for units in contact with the enemy to have to wait for hours for an airstrike to clear bureaucratic authorization hurdles and be launched.
The changing combat rules of engagement: What is one American life worth?
It is a sad thing when both the Administration and the Gun Control groups think the life of scum, terrorist and criminals are worth more than yours or your family. Imagine that, Shannon Watts on the side of the Taliban.