Memo to right-wing media: Petraeus has spoken favorably on Afghanistan's rules of engagement
Following the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the right-wing media have falsely suggested that Gen. David Petraeus, who will replace McChrystal, does not support the rules of engagement being used in conducting the war. In fact, Petraeus has repeatedly expressed his support both for the rules, and for the principal of prioritizing protection of civilian lives.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media falsely suggest Petraeus does not support current rules of engagement in Afghanistan
Carlson asks if Petraeus said "what he really felt" to Obama -- that "we need to possibly change the rules of engagement so that some civilians may actually die so that we can actually move forward." On the June 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked if, during the meeting with President Obama in which Obama asked Petraeus to take over as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Petraeus, said "what he really felt? Did he say that we need to possibly change the rules of engagement going on in Afghanistan so that some civilians may actually die so that we can actually move forward in this war?"
Miller: Petraeus "is going to come in and commence the killing." On the June 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest Dennis Miller said, "Petraeus is going to come in and he's going to commence the killing. And we've got some Jane Austen rules of engagement in Afghanistan, and if he can tighten those up a little, Petraeus is going to be a help to us there."
Coulter: Petraeus was the "right decision for the wrong reason" because troops are "chafing at these very restrictive rules."On the June 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter called replacing McChrystal with Petraeus "the right decision for the wrong reason," because "troops in Afghanistan" have been "chafing at these very restrictive rules on which insurgents they can choose. ... That is McChrystal's strategy."
In fact, Petraeus has expressed support for the rules of engagement
McChrystal issued rules of engagement for Afghanistan calling for troops to avoid "excessive use of force." In declassified portions of a revised "Tactical Directive" issued in July 2009 to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, McChrystal wrote that American troops should avoid "causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people" and that "excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks" than the "carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force."[NATO, 7/6/09]
In executing the Iraq war, Petraeus explained his support for "protecting the Iraqi population" so that "your actions don't create more enemies than you take off the streets." In an August 2007 NPR interview, Petraeus explained how he "balance[d] protecting the Iraqi population against protecting American forces":
Protecting the population really has to be the top priority. It's job number one. In fact, as we embark on the new strategy here in recent months, that has been the emphasis, to try to improve the security for the population, certainly with Iraqi security forces, but that became our number one priority.
The challenge is, of course, how to do that while still going after the bad guys, taking them down, but doing it in a way, ideally, as we used to discuss in the 101st Airborne Division: How can you do this so that you can end up with fewer enemies at the end of each day or each week than you started with; in other words, that your actions don't create more enemies than you take off the streets?
In a March 17 hearing, Petraeus noted the "loss of civilian life" "was threatening to undermine" Afghanistan strategy and described the rules of engagement as being similar to what "we went through ... in Iraq." In a March 17 congressional hearing (accessed via Nexis), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) asked Petraeus, "Would you say that these rules of engagement that we are in a situation where maybe, at some point in time, they need to be reconsidered?" Petraeus responded, regarding "the issue of the tactical directive issued first by General McKiernan and then refined by General McChrystal":
This was issued because the loss of innocent civilian life in the course of military operations was threatening to undermine the very strategy, the very policy that we were endeavoring to carry out in Afghanistan.
And after an enormous amount of, again, very careful analysis and review and so forth, this directive was published. Now, right up front in it, it says that no one is ever denied the right to self- defense, nor will we ever hesitate, if someone is pinned down by fire, in responding to ensure that those troopers never feel as if they're fighting with their hands tied behind their back.
Having said that, there are tactical situations in which, if you're not pinned down and decisively engaged and can break contact because you don't know precisely who is in the house from which there may be a fire on you, where you hesitate in dropping a bomb or reconsider because there may be innocent civilians. And we have had a number of cases in which that has happened. And there cases recently, in fact, again, and we have to reduce these cases.
But we will not do it by risking the lives of our soldiers. And so that's the balance that we have to strike. This is not uncommon to us. We went through this in Iraq as well. And there are cases where you literally back out of a fight rather than continue to prosecute it, as long as you can do that, if you're not sure exactly who might be on the receiving end of a 500-pound bomb or attack helicopter or hellfires or something like that.
So that's what we're trying to achieve.
In a June 17 hearing, Petraeus described the rules of engagement as "living our values." From a June 17 Senate hearing (accessed via Nexis) in which Petraeus discussed the rules of engagement:
SEN. JOHN THUNE [R-SD]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, is there any indication, though, that the -- that the Taliban are engaging in direct- or indirect-fire attacks more often and with greater effect now that they know -- or that with this -- that there is potentially a diminished threat from the air? Do you see any evidence to that --
GEN. PETRAEUS: In -- well, first of all, counterinsurgency is -- counterinsurgents -- or, I'm sorry. Excuse me. First of all, insurgents historically have always tried to use our rules of engagement against us. We know that. They did that in Iraq periodically. We had people in Iraq literally pushing through crowds shooting at us. This happened in -- this happened in a number of other cases in recent decades as well, in these kinds of situations.
But, you know, we are about living our values. And every time we have taken expedient measures, not only has it been wrong, we have also paid a price for it in terms of it biting us in the backside in the long run. And so that's -- again, we have to be aware that they will use our reluctance to kill innocent civilians, if you will, or to risk the lives of innocent civilians in the course of these operations.
Having said that, frankly, they generally are not engaging us directly as much as they are coming at us indirectly. They realized some years ago if -- certainly last year -- that if they engage our troopers in a direct firefight, that they will lose. And so they are using IEDs in much larger numbers than they have in the past. And that's where we see this -- the increase in the violence incidents.
Afghan leaders do "not expect [McChrystal's] replacement to change strategy." A June 24 Reuters article reported that Afghan leaders "did not expect the shake-up to bring strategic changes." According to the article, General Zaher Azimi, a spokesman for the Afghan defense ministry, said "We expect [Petraeus] to follow McChrystal's assessment, which has reduced civilian casualties, brought down arrests and house searches and involved coordination on operations."
You and left leaning politicians dumped all over this General in Congressional Hearings in 2009. He was called a liar by Democrats while explaining that the surge was working because what he said at those hearings flew in the face of all of the radical democratic talking points at that time.
So the dems and the lefties in the media dumped all over him 2009 and now he is a 'brilliant move' by Obama.
Strange times indeed.
And McChrystal's actions helped to stop that - and so of course the right is going to attack the strength of their opponents!
But I will speak to the topic. Petraeus has a reasonable take on the rules of engagement, the balance necessary to be effective. So the right wing media in this piece is off base.
I imagine that many of those who called him a liar back then would not consider him a brilliant choice now because you are referring to people who were against the war from the beginning. YOU assume that everyone who is not conservative called him a liar or that all liberals did. YOU assume that if someone is not conservative, they are anti military when in fact many people who opposed Bush were outspoken supporters of the military, just not of the policy.
Now if you want to talk about flip flops on the war. Since Obama has been Commander in Chief, all sorts of conservatives are talking about pulling out of the war. Its no longer such a fun little project for them, I suppose.
Obama IS a "move-on" guy. They worked together to get him elected and "move-on" continues to work to push him and his policies. He now picks Petraeus after they had run the "betray-us" crap.
Who are these conservatives you speak of? If there are any saying that is time to pull out it would be due to the 'rules of engagement' and not the principles behind waging this war (excuse me, I mean 'overseas contingency operation').
I think I'll win the 'flip-flop' debate on this topic.
How have the ROE changed to the degree that it warrants a complete turnaround on policy?
How have the ROE changed to the degree that it warrants a complete turnaround on policy? Please be specific.
just because they supported him does mean he will follow their wishes. A lot of liberals feel Obama has neglected their issues. Obama is not a doctrinaire ideologue. Hannity, Rush, Beck, Fox are and perhaps they expect everyone else to be?
Who are these conservatives you speak of?
I have heard Beck saying that we should consider pulling out rather than continue under Obama. George Will has advocated pulling out. I heard Morning Joe express skepticism about continuing the war. Rules of engagement for Beck perhaps, but not the rest.
I think I'll win the 'flip-flop' debate on this topic.
Bush was elected by criticizing nation building in 2000. It turned out he spent a lot of time doing it and made a big mess in the process.
I wonder why?
How is it that you're supposedly a grown adult and you don't know this?
As for the topic of this thread. Looks like Petraeus is going to modify the ROE.
Another talking point shot to pieces by facts and situation on the ground.
That's two I've corrected for you today mmfA...better light a fire under the interns, or fire the summer help.
His plan is one of Obama's strengths, and so THEY are attacking it by attacking this - remember the first paragraph in the MMFA article? It's about McChrystal's action plan, which is what I was talking about - of course you KNOW that, and you're bogusly attacking ME since you can't actually attack what I said!
Following the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the right-wing media have falsely suggested that Gen. David Petraeus, who will replace McChrystal, does not support the rules of engagement being used in conducting the war. In fact, Petraeus has repeatedly expressed his support both for the rules, and for the principal of prioritizing protection of civilian lives.
No sale Suzy. Off Topic 101.
The TOPIC is the current rules of engagement and how they might or might not be changed by the change in management of the war in Afghanistan.
So I sure DID talk about that plan and how Obama's opponents are attacking those people who will be continuing to implement those plans!
This is not rocket science, but thanks for once again showing everyone how strong your personal animus is.
One of my biggest objections to the way President George Bush waged his Global War on Terror was the result of those efforts would make lots of people become terrorists. They would be driven there by the apparent hatred of all Muslims, by the random terror that innocent civilians felt after being dragged into a war, etc.
And McChrystal's actions helped to stop that - and so of course the right is going to attack the strength of their opponents!
But in SueLuLaLa land, one never knows.
How can you possibly have missed that?
Oh, that's right, you didn't MISS it - your personal animus towards me was just so powerful that you can't admit that I proved you wrong!
Enjoy your day.
All YOU wanted to do was temporarily distract from the actual topic - you know, the one I talked about in my first post?
But thanks for ONCE AGAIN showing everyone that when you can't even come close to addressing the actual topic, you'll make one or more baseless personal attacks.
Thanks for again failing to figure out that you are not helping your side's efforts. You post a few insults, I refute them, and mock you, and no one else besides bintx and your pixie troll buddies buy into your delusional accusations. You've lost, and you'll continue to lose if you continue to behave in the same way.
Please, don't change - don't LEARN from experience, don't progress and mature - keep being a doofus in front of everyone! Please.
A source close to Gen. David Petraeus says one of the first things he will do when he takes command of the Afghan War is make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy
Do you still want to sing the same tune?
That's why his first point of order is going to be to modify the ROE. See my above post.
You see you can't keep on...oh never mind.
The surge is just a part of the let up of sectarian violence. Other factors were also involved.
which part worked?
Maybe putting insurgents on the payroll did. Not exactly a shining example of Bush's original vision of ridding the world of evil doers.
maybe if we just give bank robbers money, pedophiles children to molest and rapists women to rape then we could pretty much solve a lot of the crime problem the same way we "won" the war in iraq.
Totally agree, and I'm neither defending the war nor claiming the surge was a cure-all. But the country was spinning out of control in 2006, before the surge, and was widely predicted to collapse into a civil war spurned on by its neighbors. The surge did help quell violence by about 60%, and did provide relative security in which to establish a political process. It certainly wasn't an ill-advised policy and in the view of many, myself included, it was the most fitting policy under those circumstances.
And I'm still curious to hear how GP "lied." I think the evidence reflects that he performed honorably and admirably. ..
Same with Iraq. There's no dispute that the war turned the country into a whirlwind. In 2006, the question was, how to we stem this incredible tide of violence and avoid a wholesale civil war. Think back at the endless and daily bombings. Petraeus proposed a surge,and it helped ebb the violence and initiate a political process. Did it work 100%, certainly not, but it certainly brought about changes that were better than the status quo.
I'm still waiting for you to cite a single statement by GP that was a lie. Don't conflate GP with Bush. ..
Also, after Bush's track record for truthyness in these matters, skepticism towards Bush's leadership was understandable by 2007. WMDs were a lie and W kept telling us we were doing well when we were not. After invasion Iraq was not the scenario Bush laid out before the war. By 2007 the surge looked a lot like more of the same...
Does it surprise you that non-conservatives can be consistent? If all your information comes from people like glen beck and sean hannity, I am sure it does. For the conservative media, any criticism of the war meant that your were either a wimp, against the military or sympathetic to the enemy. In reality a lot of patriotic people spoke out against what they saw would be a big mistake.
Perhaps Obama isn't such a covert Muslim, pro-terrorist, non-citizen anti white, socialist president after all.
See... we're not "at war" with Iraq or Afganistan the way we were with Germany or Japan last time around. Vietnam & Korea are better examples, but still lousy. The problem here with all of those analogies is that our to biggest allies in the Iraq and Afganistan War... are Iraq and Afganistan. At least NOW. See... We WON THE WAR the minute that Saddam and teh Taliban were knocked out of power. At that point? The WAR'S over. We're not fighting against AFGANISTAN any more (or IRAQ.) So how does it make any less than PERFECT SENSE to have a strategy which minimizes civilian casualties?
-------------------------------------------------
Especially when the portion of the populatons who oppose us, does so largely on the grounds that we're causing civilian casualties?!
This is so true and illustrates how our soldiers are on a political mission more than anything else.
I think a lot of people had this fantasy that the War on Terror would be like the wars fought by the greatest generation - particularly WWII. It sure didn't turn out that way.
The War on Terror has been ill defined from the beginning. What does victory look like? How do we stop a behavior or a tactic? Who is a combatant in the war? What is our commitment?
See... we're not "at war" with Iraq or Afganistan the way we were with Germany or Japan last time around.
We were told to shop after 9-11. Most young men do not see military service these days and there is no draft, no rationing, no tax to pay for the war, no retooling of industry... The war on Terror was supposed to be about defending are very way of life, yet for the average citizen, it is mostly in the background.
---------------------------------------------------
Ike - the last Republican that didn't pretty much suck.
Obama is a smart guy. The reasons for continuing and indeed escalating the war (conflict, mission, whatever name you choose) in Afghanistan must be compelling. It is, according to him, in the vital national security interests of the United States.
So, saying that they reached the same conclusion based upon the evidence is totally incorrect.
Your logic has rendered me speechless!