NATO to award medals for “courageous restraint?”

May 6, 2010

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an award given to a soldier for not firing his weapon.

What’s next? The French Croix du PouletChicken

(via Gateway Pundit)

ADDENDUM: No, I’m not advocating that soldiers should fire their weapons at every killer rabbit or suspicious Afghan, but the overly-restrained rules of engagement we operate under are already dangerous, and this new idea just seems plain silly.

LINKS: More at Hot Air.

This is no way to fight a war

February 23, 2010

With the enemy in their sights, Marines in Afghanistan have to consult with lawyers before opening fire.

No, I’m not jokingDoh

(via Hot Air)


September 9, 2009

Four US Marines and nine Afghan soldiers died in a Taliban ambush because rules of engagement promulgated by the Obama Administration denied them artillery support:

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

And this is Obama’s “smart war?”

This is going to sound heartless, but civilian casualties happen in war: war is tragic and sickening, but, unlike a video game it is not clean. We’ve done wonders with smart technology to reduce collateral damage and civilian deaths (contra the Left’s twisted fantasies), but, I repeat, when you have bombs and bullets flying around, civilians are going to get killed, and no amount of handwringing rules of engagement is going to change that.

It is just as bad, if not worse, however, to send troops into combat and not provide them with everything they need to win, and it is obscene to deny them the help they need when they are under attack. We try to avoid civilian deaths, but it is insane to hamstring our own troops in combat.

George W. Bush was willing to change his strategy in Iraq in order to win; Barack Obama changes strategy in Afghanistan to avoid looking bad. Message to the President: Either fight to win or get out.

(via Weasel Zippers)