Could this be True?

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I read this a few days back, surely not true?

Retired US Lieutenant General David Deptula said recently, “The ultimate guidance (regarding air strikes in Iraq) rests with the black guy with his feet on the desk. Over three quarters of pilots leaving Gulf carriers are returning without dropping anything due to delays in decision-making up the chain of command in Obama's War council.”
Sources involved in the air war against ISIS said that, “Strike missions take on average just under an hour from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing so by that time the insurgents have either vanished or we are out of fuel”.
After Obama had changed the rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan in 2011, immediately US combat troop deaths tripled.
Marines complained that they needed to watch through their night-vision goggles as shadowy green figures dug holes in the roadway. “On several occasions we opened fire but at some point, the order came down to ‘Stop shooting at night unless you can positively identify an insurgent’. We knew what they were doing ... burying IEDs for sure, but command instructed us that, ‘You can't be positive. They might be farmers.' It’s ridiculous”, they said.
Also under orders from the Obama Administration, a new military handbook was published for all U.S. troops deployed to the Middle East which contained a list of “taboo conversation topics”. It included:
• “Making derogatory comments about the Taliban.”
• “Advocating women’s rights.”
• “Any criticism of paedophilia.”
• “Mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct,” or
• “Anything related to Islam itself.”
Furthermore, Obama had noted in his handbook that, “The tripling in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against US forces was due to Western ignorance of Afghan culture”. Hmmm.
Obama’s revised ROE in Iraq has meant airstrike missions have dropped from a planned 800 per day to 14, through pilots’ inability to engage targets.
The pilot must first determine that no more than 10 per cent of any target would involve civilians and in no case no more than 30 civilians must be at risk at any time. If in any doubt, permission must be sought from higher up the line of command.
Combat troops must be accompanied by Iraqi soldiers and must not enter mosques at any time nor should they enter homes unless fired upon first.
Only women can search women, even when a male is suspected of wearing a burkah. No night or surprise searches are allowed. Households have to be warned prior to searches. U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
If Iraqi soldiers are present US troops can fire at an insurgent if they see him planting an IED during the day, but not at night and not if insurgents are merely, “walking away from the area where the explosives have been laid”.
The recent fall of Ramadi was anticipated 12 months ago when US intelligence first detected a slow build-up of ISIS forces on the western perimeter, yet targeting of those forces using air strikes was not given clearance by US command.
The ISIS can peruse the revised Obama ROEs on the internet at any time, courtesy of Wikileaks, yet no changes appear to have been made to the rules. So mosques have become weapons caches, male suicide bombers dress in burkahs, ISIS militia will not open fire on US troops unless surrounded by civilians and, as long as they are not shooting at things, convoys of ISIS artillery can move freely on open roadways without fear of being shot at.
Fair dinkum can America sustain 18 more months of the Obama/Kerry twins, with the corrupt Clintons in the wings?
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I tend to agree with you, Pete...surely not true.

Rules of Engagement change all the time....but whether or not "...the black guy with his feet on the desk..." was responsible for those changes outlined in the document is not entirely clear to me....and...having grown up in a family where the father was heavily involved in military issues, much if not all of which included aviation, I know that these changes in the "...rules of engagement..." are not made on a whim. There are multiple meetings with heads of departments and military leaders involved before any changes to the ROE are made.

Just curious...I notice you didn't list the source of your information. Is it questionable in regards to neutrality?

I will admit...the POTUS does seem reluctant to initiate acts of war. That's not always a bad thing, in my eyes...a bit of caution is never a bad thing where lives are at risk, whether those lives are in the cockpit of an airplane or on the ground. If I had to guess (and, of course, that's all it would be) I'd say the POTUS would prefer to be remembered in history for getting the U.S. out of a terrible war (Afghanistan) rather than immersed into a different, but just as unwinnable, conflict...not to mention that we made sure that the Iraqi's had full control of their country before we left, and they are the ones who abandoned their posts. I would be reluctant to dedicate further American lives given the manner in which those who have lived in that country all of their lives are acting.

I hate to be hard-hearted, but I say we ALL leave them alone and let them fight it out among themselves, as they have for millenniums and will continue to do, regardless of our best intentions or efforts.

Cheers!

Doug
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
There should be only ONE "rule of engagement": 'Do whatever needs to be done to get the job done...then pack up and go home.'
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I agree, Larry...but that's provided it's a declared war...come to think of it, that's the only kind there is :idea:

So.....our country has sorta decided to skip that "declaration of war" part...so...if our elected reps don't want to man up and declare a war, our country shouldn't send our troops. We should have been doing what our founding fathers thought was best....declare war to tell 'em we're coming and hope they want to fight.

What were we thinking?????

Cheers!

Doug
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Doug the source is Larry Pickering a well known Australian journalist and cartoonist.
He leans towards the right, so you could well say he is not neutral, but that is true of most commentators today.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I agree, Larry...but that's provided it's a declared war...

We haven't "declared war" since WWII...even though we've fought several. 'Seems it's sufficiently "constitutional" to just redefine what constitutes a war ("can you say police action? I knew you could" [Mr. Rogers...sorta]) - then go fight wunna THOSE instead and all is 'legal'. Problem solved...'far as politicians are concerned anyway.



Absolutely, but how do you declare war on a cult?

By referring to it by NAME and declaring war on it 'and any and all of its associated groups'...then hunt 'em down and kill 'em - and BOARDERS be danged.

'Can't declare a war in the t-r-a-d-t-i-o-n-a-l sense 'cause terrorist pukes aren't tied to any particular nation. 'Gotta declare war on terrorist groups and individuals instead...IF you're gunna DECLARE war that is. It's the only 'option' available 'far as I can see.
 
Last edited:

Pat

Supporter
Just for the record, we (the U.S.) do most of our belligerence without declaring war.

There have been only five formally declared wars in US history:

The War of 1812 with the United Kingdom - Declared 6/18/1812
The Mexican-American War - Declared 5/13/1846
The Spanish-American War - Declared 4/25/1898
WW1 - Declared against Germany 4/6/1917 and Austria-Hungary 12/07/1917
WW2 - Declared against Japan 12/8/1941; against Germany & Italy 12/11/1941; Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania 6/5/1942

All other military actions were either informal interventions, or policing actions sanctioned in part or whole by Congress. These include but are not limited to:
The Quasi-War (France) - 07/09/1798
First Barbary War (Tripoli) - 02/06/1802
Second Barbary War (Algiers) - 05/10/1815
African Slave Trade Ban - 1819-1823
Engagement of the Paraguayan Navy - 1859
Engagement with Russian forces during the Russian civil War - 1917-1923
Korean War - 07/07/1950
Lebanon Crisis of 1958 - Operation Blue Bat - 07/15/1958
Vietnam War - 08/07/1964
Peace-Keeping operations during the Bosnian War - 03/19/1978
Lebanon Peace-Keeping Coalition - 09/29/1983
Operation Urgent Fury 10/15 1983 (invasion of Grenada)
Operation Just Cause 12/20/89
Operation Desert Storm - 01/12/1991
Operation Enduring Freedom - 09/14/2001
Operation Iraqi Freedom - 03/03/2003
Peace-Keeping Operations during the Second Liberian Civil War - 08/01/2003
The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti - 02/29/2004

Additionally, there are a vast number of military actions and engagements that have taken place as a result of the President exercising his power as the Command-in-Chief - most recently against Libya which toppled that regime but include drug interdiction in Central and South America, intervention on the high seas and current operations in Uganda in pursuit of Mr. Kony.
 
Back
Top