|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 ‘Courageous Restraint’ QuestionedPosted on Jul 11, 2010
“Courageous restraint,” or stringent restrictions on engaging the enemy that were implemented to cut down civilian casualties in Afghanistan, is under fire by Britain’s top general there after soldiers complained against the perceived inflexibility of the protocol. To put these criticisms into context, June was the deadliest month in Afghanistan for NATO troops since they arrived back in 2001, with many soldiers believing they have not been given the freedom to properly engage those they see as the enemy.—JCL
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Guantanamo Prisoner’s Case Demonstrates Unfairness of Military Commissions
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By jean gerard, July 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
And about that “courageous restraint” bit:
What is “courageous” or “restrained” about dropping bombs from drones
directed from miles away by computer?
What kind of “courageous restraint” do they teach in boot camp?
Can you imagine the self-deceit it would take to sell “courageous restraint” to
a sleepless, half-drugged, scared kid on the front lines in a country whose
culture he is too under-educated to understand, whose language is
meaningless, and whose one overpowering hope is to get out of there alive?
What kind of Pentagon official has the unmitigated gall to presume that a term
as dishonest as “courageous restraint” can pass for policy when the weapons
being used are created for the maximum amount of destruction possible for
one man to deliver over an extended period of time?
What kind of people support the continuation of such tactics?
Report thisBy FRTothus, July 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
The reason US and UK warriors for empire are getting killed is because they are there. Our invasion and occupation have NO legitimacy, contrary to law, and any resistance offered by the Afghans is completely valid and honorable.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, July 12, 2010 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
Shades of Vietnam.
Since when do the rules of engagement not allow soldiers to return fire when fired upon.
The problem is with the standoff weapons, made by the lowest bidder, controlled by a airman 5000 miles away who thinks hes playing world of warcraft.
Report thisBy jean gerard, July 12, 2010 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I hope people recognize the extraordinary amount of double-talk in this report:
“...hope we have not over-corrected” ...“bring things gently back into line: ...“have
tools at their disposal and use them in the right way”... “the right degree of
maneuver on operations” ... “undermine the coherency of the insurgency at higher
levels” ... “platform was easily taken over” ... “my professional belief that progress
is being made” ... re-examine and make sure we have not over-corrected” ...
Makes you almost wish words had never been invented!
Report thisBy bogi666, July 12, 2010 at 3:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Just why is it that the UK has a dog in this invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion there by the USG is dubious at best due to 9/11, which was allowed to happen by the USG. So now the UK killers in a war of choice complain about not being able to shot enough people fast enough. The Brits were brutal colonizers. Having lived in a former British Colony which recounts how the Brits conducted themselves, hanging persons based on rumors, immediately within hours of learning of the rumor.
Report thisBy TheHandyman, July 11, 2010 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
Soldiers are trained to kill. When they are put in foreign countries where the citizens don’t look like them everyone is perceived as an enemy. When soldiers are getting killed the reaction by the troops is that we need to kill them before they kill us. It is a no win situation and killing escalates. You can not use the military to do what only civilian organizations can do. And you cannot establish the kind of institutions necessary to stabilize a country when the government is selected by the occupiers who selected the govt on the basis of their needs, not those of the people. The Karzai govt is corrupt, not supported by the people and there for the troops will remain in danger as long as that is the case.
Anyone who really wants the deaths on both sides to stop will pull all the troops out and wait until the people get fed up and do what they must do to have the kinds of life they want.
There can never be Democracy by force which this is constantly being sold as but is just the smoke screen used to save face. Everyone really wants out but nobody will admit that they don’t know how. They could look at how the Russians finally did it. They tucked their tails between their legs and ran. Even they knew it was better to do so sooner than later.
The only choice is to put a million or so troops in the country, run it as a colony for 50 years and then withdraw and hope that by then enough institutions will survive to keep things stable and functioning. Unless the US and its friends are willing to do that it is just a matter of time before we either wind up with a Dien bin Phu on our hands or we leave as fast as we can in the middle of the night!
Report this