America's Dumbest War Ever

[David Morton]

By Michael Yon: America’s Dumbest War, Ever

Yesterday a concerned father forwarded to me a letter from his son in Afghanistan. I confirmed authenticity, and republish with permission:

Dad,

I am fed up. I cannot believe the lack of attention the recent changes in this war is receiving by the media or the country. I think I saw one thing on CNN about the following subject, but I had to dig extensively to find it. The purpose of this letter is to let you know of the garbage that our soldiers are going through right now. With this knowledge, I hope that you take action by writing your congressmen.

First, because of the recent green on blue incidents or "insider threats" as the new buzz phrase dictates, all coalition forces in Afghanistan have completely stopped partnering with the ANA, AUP, and ALP in order to prevent the death of anymore CF casualties by ANSF or Taliban disguised as them. This is also greatly spurred by President Karzi's indifferent attitude and lack of action to take measures to prevent further insider attacks.

Second, because of this massive change in policy (and complete change in mission) all U.S. forces are forbidden to actively patrol their AO and are to remain on their respective COPs/FOBs. There are only a few exceptions to this rule and they all pertain to "hardening" highway 1 in our AO. We have received orders that clearly state that all CF will no longer be allowed to drop air to ground munitions within the country of Afghanistan. This preempts Karzi's announcement that will be made shortly that states the above mentioned order, making it a tactical directive that he is ordering.

To the first point: Our mission in Afghanistan is to partner with the ANSF on all levels. Now the policy makers are telling us that we are not allowed to do that and further more we are to take immediate measures to secure ourselves from the ANSF that are co-located with us. So the question now becomes, what is our mission? Furthermore, the implication is that we have absolutely no reason to still be in this country if we are not partnering with the ANSF. So why are we here?

To the second point: I don't think that the American citizens would be happy if they knew that their soldiers were being prohibited from defending themselves in any way because of politically driven orders, but that is precisely what is happening in this war right now even as I write this letter. The soldiers of the U.S. never engage the enemy unless we know that we have will always have the tactical advantage in defending ourselves, that advantage is the use of close air support and air weapons team. To take those weapons away from us is to level the playing field for the enemy and thus exposing our soldiers to more danger. In the school house they teach us that the minimum ratio that we are to engage the enemy with, is a 3:1 ratio. In other words, we have the highest probability of winning because we don’t fight fair. The sound tactical principles behind this teaching have saved lives. The very presence of aircraft over our foot patrols has also saved lives and now our chain of command is being told by our political leadership that this is now not allowed. If we are not partnering with the ANSF and we are not actively patrolling to prevent our enemies from massing their attacks on our COP and we can’t drop a bomb on the enemy that we have positively identified, than what the hell are we doing here?

Give us a mission or send us home. I honestly have no preference on what the politicians decide, as long as they just make a decision. Of course this will be a terrible inconvenience on the current elections so I am sure we will be forgotten, which really does not seem to be too different for how things have been going for the last eleven years.

Do not buy into what the some media outlets have already said about this. Casually saying that this is a frequent occurrence is false, and is an attempt to downplay the major ramifications for these decisions. We have never been so restricted in defending ourselves as we have now. This is not just a stand down. The other implication of this decision is that we will perhaps never regain our relationship with the ANA after we have executed these measures to protect ourselves from them. Essentially, we have left them to die as we watch from our high-tech cameras and UAVs. They will not forget this and I fear the relationship will never be the same.

I love you very much Dad and I don’t want you to worry about me any more than you already are, but I also know that this has to be brought up, someone has to say something about this. It is wrong to keep this hidden away while American soldiers are under constant threat of death and dying. I don’t care if you send this letter directly, this needs to be known.

Your son,

[In Afghanistan]

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Dumber and dumber,the situation would be laughable if it wasn't costing young lives. What is it with freaking politicians? They just don't get it.
Wrong! They get it but don't give a shit about anything other than winning votes.

 

[Charlie Farley]

No close air support , thats taking us back to the times of Lawrence of Arabia.
Why don't we take away their armoured transport and just give them camels...
and be done with it.

 

[Mark]

Can't afford to get the Kites banged up darling. Better leave them safely tucked up at a base back home. Intimidate the enemy from afar!

Opps, that sounds like an arguement in suport of ICBMs

 

[Keith]

Like I said on another thread, when the Mercian Regiment were told the rules of engagement had changed from proactive action against anyone seen carrying a weapon to only return fire, then it was game over.

This happened about 3 months ago and it's interesting that the Americans seem to have the same rules imposed, so a political move.

This will be seen, and exploited, as a weakness. Look for the death toll to rise exponentially.

 

[Doug S.]

By Michael Yon: America’s Dumbest War, Ever

Yesterday a concerned father forwarded to me a letter from his son in Afghanistan. I confirmed authenticity, and republish with permission:

Dad,

I am fed up.

Give us a mission or send us home. I honestly have no preference on what the politicians decide, as long as they just make a decision. Of course this will be a terrible inconvenience on the current elections so I am sure we will be forgotten, which really does not seem to be too different for how things have been going for the last eleven years.

Interesting to see how far back this issue goes, politically. I thought with all the pre-election brouhaha that it was endemic to the current administration, only......now it is patently clear that I was mistaken!

A sad state of affairs, indeed. I wonder if my dad, who flew P51s over Europe in WWII, would have survived if there were any "rules of engagement"....the way he described it was he was there to kill as many of the enemy as possible in any way possible.

War should be WAR....but, IMHO, it should be a DECLARED war, an act of congress, and not an "adminstrative decision".

Shame on Congress for having absolved themselves of the responsibility, and shame on the administrations responsible for having adopted the authority for "police actions" or whatever terms they used to justify such transgressions.....Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan come to mind first, but I am sure there were lesser important scirmishes, such as the smaller countries in Central Americas....wasn't one Granada, another Panama?

When did America lose it's cajones??????? It appears to this hawk that it was right after WWII!!!

Bring our boys home before even one more death occurs......:idea:

Thanks, David, for posting this illuminating and disturbing private communication.....and kudos to the author for giving permission!

Doug

 

[Tom P]

Bush and the last 20 months of congress, that's the ticket! Always ends up here. Young people are dying, stupid rules of engagement.

 

[Pat]

Tom, just for the record, the ridiculous rules of engagement that are now so dangerous to our troops were instituted in by Gen. Stanley McChrystal before his relief/resignation in 2010 and were under the watch of Mr. Obama, not Mr. Bush. Afghanistan is Mr. Obama’s war, his surge, his claim that it, not Iraq was the “right war” and his disaster. We have troops repeatedly being gunned down by our “Afghanistan allies” with no apparent repercussions to the Karzai government. Apparently one can murder a GI but you’re going to jail if you throw away a Koran.
In 2010 Gen. McChrystal (before he had been relieved by Mr. Obama for comments he had made critical of the administration in Rolling Stone magazine) had cracked down on the rules of engagement in an effort to limit civilian casualties as the United States led the surge of 30,000 troops into Kandahar and began a new counter-insurgency campaign in the town where the Taliban movement was born. This was the same surge promised by Mr. Obama in his 2008 campaign. The engagement rules were tightened even further by his replacement Gen. Pateraeus "Concentrating our efforts on protecting the population.” Now, if NATO troops are taking fire from a building but don’t see who is holding weapon, they cannot call for artillery or air strikes for lack of a “specific target”. (As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that in the not too distant past, you took fire from a structure, you leveled it-end of problem.)
So a Marine in Afghanistan, charged with fighting terrorists, can't shoot at Taliban terrorists unless he sees them actually holding weapons in their hands! If the Taliban terrorists only temporarily put their arms down, NATO forces are forbidden from shooting at them! Also forbidden is to treat the captured terrorists "roughly"-as in using "harsh" language against them that may hurt their terrorist feelings-and that once a prisoner is detained, NATO must release them after 96 hours if they are not delivered over to the Afghan police where they are often summarily released to rejoin the fight.
Instead of being afraid of the might of U.S. firepower, enemy fighters use the administration’s rules of engagement and restrictions on air support against our troops. When faced with a split-second decision of whether to shoot, soldiers many times must hesitate—or be investigated. Or, as in the case of the 2009 Battle of Ganjgal, excessive restrictions on air and artillery assets unfortunately meant excessive American deaths. I have previously posted that under Mr. Obama's watch: 44 Months, 69 Percent of Afghan War Casualties ... each of the three deadliest years have been during Obama's presidency and his bullshit engagement rules are part of the reason why.
This is reminiscent of the final days of Vietnam. We’re pulling out, morale is sinking and we are no longer fighting to win. I agree with others here (and have said so before), we need to get our troops out of the quagmire immediately as every death is now pointless and tragically senseless.

 

[Jim Craik]

Yes I agree this is a terrable situation.

Afghanistan is Mr. Obama’s war

Posted by Veek.

Veek, you really did not think that you could get away with a statement like that?

So lets look at some facts...............

George Bush Started the war 10/07/2001, because the Afgan Govenment had not handed over Bin Laden and kick out the Taliban. He gave the Afgans less than 26 days after 9-11 before he started the war. Did he did try sanctions, did he did try negociations, NO, he just attacked. 26 days!!!!!!!!!!

George Bush started this war and even after the the Afgan Govrnment fell, he just kept on with it. He ran this quagmire for over SEVEN years, and then he just left his mess for the next president.

Keep in mind all through the last campaign, you Consevatives attacked any thoughts of stopping this mess with shouts of, they do not understand the world and want to.........

"CUT AND RUN", they told everyone over and over that the worst possible thing we could do is "CUT AND RUN".

Now after President Obams has been in office for only three+ years, now you are saying this is all Obamas fault, he should have "CUT AND RUN" long ago. Hypocracy at its best.

Veek, using your twisted way of looking at things, this would make Vietnam a Republican war! You OK with that?

So Veek, just when exactly did you Consevatives change from the CUT AND RUN is the worst thing possible, to CUT AND RUN is obviously the right thing to do and those stupid Democrats do not understand the world.................They should have "CUT AND RUN" long ago?

 

[Tom P]

In previous years Presidents have taken responsibility for their Presidency from the day they took office. I don't recall one President that didn't have any idea of what he was getting into and having to blame everything imaginable for his inability to run the office he was elected for, until Obama. From January 20th 2009 to January 19th 2013 is his. Does the next President get to piss and moan about Obama from January 20, 2013 on? Did someone give Obama the wrong job desciption?

 

[Jim Craik]

TomP,

Tom, Google "Reagan blames Carter" then, then look up "Nixon blames Kennedy & Johnson", when finished you can come back and tell us you were wrong.

 

[Doug S.]

Does the next President get to piss and moan about Obama from January 20, 2013 on? Did someone give Obama the wrong job desciption?

If we're lucky, the next POTUS WILL BE Obama!

Then he can blame nobody but himself....:thumbsup: !!

Doug

 

[Tom P]

TomP,

Tom, Google "Reagan blames Carter" then, then look up "Nixon blames Kennedy & Johnson", when finished you can come back and tell us you were wrong.

Reagan blamed the ressession on Carter, But not for his entire presidency which is probably why I didn't remember it.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Jim, I think Veek is right on this one. I agree that Obama wanted to get us out of Iraq, where we invaded them and picked an unnecessary fight just because Bush and Cheney had a hard-on for Saddam Hussein, and get us more involved in Assfuckistan, I guess on the grounds that the terrorist acts of 9/11 originated in that country when it was hospitable to Al-Qaeda. This is approximately like invading Germany because it was the geographical location of the Baader-Meinhof gang, who were ethnically German.

I think we would have all been far better served by getting us out of Iraq and NOT going further into Afghanistan, but I can't pretend to have been that intelligent at the time, not that anyone was asking me.

Frankly I do not see a reason for any American soldier to be deployed in combat right now. I suppose that will bring all the wrath of the internet down on me, but hey, I've been yelled at before and I am still alive and kicking.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Jim,I agree no reason for NATO to be there either. Leave them to it but destroy the Poppy fields before we go.

 

[David Morton]

Jim,
A really neat post.
No more of these soldiers should be sacrificed on the altar or political ego.

If I had my life again would I change things around. Definitely and no more fucking cowards in charge of any co-alition forces and by that I mean both soldiers and politicians. Your Presidents and our Prime ministers could have sorted this shit out long ago but instead we have lost three thousand one hundred and ninety (3190) brave men (multiply that by five and you have the number of casualties and then multiply that again by five and you see the number of families whose lives have been ruined forever. I make that about 82,000 people who will never forget afghanistan. Thats about 82,000 people who will walk away and never complain because it is their loved ones who were involved and paid with their lives or severe injuries and complaining and protesting is not their way.

BUT is is my way and it's something we can all do if we know how to write letters.
Figure it out gentlemen and then think why I've kept banging on to all of you to write to your presidents and prime ministers.
It was never an anti muslim thing inspite of what some of the turds on this website think. Its always been an anti terrorist thing. My life and that of my family have been changed dramatically because of the terrorist threat in MY country and it will never ever go back to what it was. Figure it out for your selves.

 

[Mark]

+1 x1000

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I owe an apology here. Not only no American soldiers but no troops of ANY nation should be over there- no Brits, no Aussies, no NZers, no Canadians, no French, no Germans,,, etc etc etc. I should have said that to begin with. There was never anything to prove there to begin with, and there is nothing left to prove now. Do I feel bad for the Afghans? Of course I do. Does NATO or anyone else being there or staying there make any difference? Not a pinch of shit's worth, as they say here in the South.

I am going to be sixty-one in October. Just ONCE, just fucking ONCE, I'd like to have a year of my life on earth where the USA and it's allies are not in a war someplace. Just one year, that's all I ask. After that, I suppose it's back to business as usual. But, honest to God, would the world be so much worse off if we weren't constantly making it safe for democracy?

I didn't think so, either. Goodnight, gentlemen.

 

[Nick]

I am going to be sixty-one in October. Just ONCE, just fucking ONCE, I'd like to have a year of my life on earth where the USA and it's allies are not in a war someplace. Just one year, that's all I ask. After that, I suppose it's back to business as usual. But, honest to God, would the world be so much worse off if we weren't constantly making it safe for democracy?

I didn't think so, either. Goodnight, gentlemen.

Jim,

Bit simplistic but to a point I think it backs up your thoughts.

 

[Keith]

I know that you are a person that eschews violence Nick, but you may find it prudent to don a tin hat and find a slit trench.... :shifty: