yeah what a shame they just can't shoot EVERYONE.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Also the Marines have a very crappy ROE that the enemy is using against them. Fucking politicians.
Something all these highly experienced and well-read experts on this forum are missing are a key difference in this operation: the intent of ops is changing in Helmand. They're no longer just clearing ops...so the Talibs just burying their shit and changing their turbans really does them no good.LividBovine wrote:
The goal is to win over the people.Shahter wrote:
you are assuming they actually intend to destroy that enemy. they don't.BN wrote:
You are just moving the enemy around. They are still out there.
Here, read it yourselves.
English translation.jord wrote:
It's called operation moshtarak not operation together wtf
Not being able to shoot at somebody who just threw their weapon down and tries to get back to looking like a civilian is a bullshit rule. Also having to release the captured enemies 96 hours after capture is another bullshit rule.ruisleipa wrote:
yeah what a shame they just can't shoot EVERYONE.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Also the Marines have a very crappy ROE that the enemy is using against them. Fucking politicians.
Fuckin politicians and human rights law fucks.
I would agree that the ROE is pretty retarded. It's been that way both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Not being able to shoot at somebody who just threw their weapon down and tries to get back to looking like a civilian is a bullshit rule. Also having to release the captured enemies 96 hours after capture is another bullshit rule.ruisleipa wrote:
yeah what a shame they just can't shoot EVERYONE.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Also the Marines have a very crappy ROE that the enemy is using against them. Fucking politicians.
Fuckin politicians and human rights law fucks.
You're such a drama queen with your, "EVERYONE" lol.
I think the concept behind the ROE is spot on. The execution is what's off.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that the ROE is pretty retarded. It's been that way both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Not being able to shoot at somebody who just threw their weapon down and tries to get back to looking like a civilian is a bullshit rule. Also having to release the captured enemies 96 hours after capture is another bullshit rule.ruisleipa wrote:
yeah what a shame they just can't shoot EVERYONE.
Fuckin politicians and human rights law fucks.
You're such a drama queen with your, "EVERYONE" lol.
Fair enough, but as Shifty points out, why can't you shoot at people who do that or at people that run to pick up the weapons?FEOS wrote:
I think the concept behind the ROE is spot on. The execution is what's off.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that the ROE is pretty retarded. It's been that way both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Not being able to shoot at somebody who just threw their weapon down and tries to get back to looking like a civilian is a bullshit rule. Also having to release the captured enemies 96 hours after capture is another bullshit rule.
You're such a drama queen with your, "EVERYONE" lol.
If there is a remote chance of hitting civilians, you can't engage...even if it means the bad guys get away. Basic philosophy is that you can kill 100 insurgents but kill one civilian and you will lose, regardless of the tactical situation. Understanding that reality is what drives the ROE.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but as Shifty points out, why can't you shoot at people who do that or at people that run to pick up the weapons?FEOS wrote:
I think the concept behind the ROE is spot on. The execution is what's off.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that the ROE is pretty retarded. It's been that way both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
It's a shame people don't factor that consideration into their opinion of our forces in comparison to insurgents.FEOS wrote:
If there is a remote chance of hitting civilians, you can't engage...even if it means the bad guys get away. Basic philosophy is that you can kill 100 insurgents but kill one civilian and you will lose, regardless of the tactical situation. Understanding that reality is what drives the ROE.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but as Shifty points out, why can't you shoot at people who do that or at people that run to pick up the weapons?FEOS wrote:
I think the concept behind the ROE is spot on. The execution is what's off.
I think if you look at the implementation of these ROE, you'll see a correlation to an increase in casualty rates among coalition forces. People don't take that into consideration, either. Basically, our guys sacrificing their lives for Afghans...literally.Turquoise wrote:
It's a shame people don't factor that consideration into their opinion of our forces in comparison to insurgents.FEOS wrote:
If there is a remote chance of hitting civilians, you can't engage...even if it means the bad guys get away. Basic philosophy is that you can kill 100 insurgents but kill one civilian and you will lose, regardless of the tactical situation. Understanding that reality is what drives the ROE.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but as Shifty points out, why can't you shoot at people who do that or at people that run to pick up the weapons?
Do you think all of this work against the Taliban will pay off in a few years, or do you think Afghanistan will just fall back into being run by extremists again?FEOS wrote:
I think if you look at the implementation of these ROE, you'll see a correlation to an increase in casualty rates among coalition forces. People don't take that into consideration, either. Basically, our guys sacrificing their lives for Afghans...literally.Turquoise wrote:
It's a shame people don't factor that consideration into their opinion of our forces in comparison to insurgents.FEOS wrote:
If there is a remote chance of hitting civilians, you can't engage...even if it means the bad guys get away. Basic philosophy is that you can kill 100 insurgents but kill one civilian and you will lose, regardless of the tactical situation. Understanding that reality is what drives the ROE.
I think if the ANA can hold Helmand and Kandahar can be effectively governed by Kabul, then the Talibs really have nowhere to go. That was their last stronghold. They either go back to Baluchistan and the other PAK/AFG border regions or they work with the Afghan government to become a part of the overall power structure in Afghanistan--to have their voice heard politically rather than via violence. Otherwise, they're just marginalized. Either way, they will have to give up the goods on AQ to get anywhere.Turquoise wrote:
Do you think all of this work against the Taliban will pay off in a few years, or do you think Afghanistan will just fall back into being run by extremists again?FEOS wrote:
I think if you look at the implementation of these ROE, you'll see a correlation to an increase in casualty rates among coalition forces. People don't take that into consideration, either. Basically, our guys sacrificing their lives for Afghans...literally.Turquoise wrote:
It's a shame people don't factor that consideration into their opinion of our forces in comparison to insurgents.
Well, if they have nowhere to go in Afghanistan, won't they just stay in the less controlled regions of Pakistan? I know the Pakistani government is making some progress against the Taliban on their own land, but isn't Pakistan still mostly governed locally rather than by their national government?FEOS wrote:
I think if the ANA can hold Helmand and Kandahar can be effectively governed by Kabul, then the Talibs really have nowhere to go. That was their last stronghold. They either go back to Baluchistan and the other PAK/AFG border regions or they work with the Afghan government to become a part of the overall power structure in Afghanistan--to have their voice heard politically rather than via violence. Otherwise, they're just marginalized. Either way, they will have to give up the goods on AQ to get anywhere.Turquoise wrote:
Do you think all of this work against the Taliban will pay off in a few years, or do you think Afghanistan will just fall back into being run by extremists again?FEOS wrote:
I think if you look at the implementation of these ROE, you'll see a correlation to an increase in casualty rates among coalition forces. People don't take that into consideration, either. Basically, our guys sacrificing their lives for Afghans...literally.
That's essentially what I just said.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if they have nowhere to go in Afghanistan, won't they just stay in the less controlled regions of Pakistan? I know the Pakistani government is making some progress against the Taliban on their own land, but isn't Pakistan still mostly governed locally rather than by their national government?FEOS wrote:
I think if the ANA can hold Helmand and Kandahar can be effectively governed by Kabul, then the Talibs really have nowhere to go. That was their last stronghold. They either go back to Baluchistan and the other PAK/AFG border regions or they work with the Afghan government to become a part of the overall power structure in Afghanistan--to have their voice heard politically rather than via violence. Otherwise, they're just marginalized. Either way, they will have to give up the goods on AQ to get anywhere.Turquoise wrote:
Do you think all of this work against the Taliban will pay off in a few years, or do you think Afghanistan will just fall back into being run by extremists again?
So, do you think the Pakistanis actually would defeat the Taliban in that scenario?FEOS wrote:
That's essentially what I just said.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if they have nowhere to go in Afghanistan, won't they just stay in the less controlled regions of Pakistan? I know the Pakistani government is making some progress against the Taliban on their own land, but isn't Pakistan still mostly governed locally rather than by their national government?FEOS wrote:
I think if the ANA can hold Helmand and Kandahar can be effectively governed by Kabul, then the Talibs really have nowhere to go. That was their last stronghold. They either go back to Baluchistan and the other PAK/AFG border regions or they work with the Afghan government to become a part of the overall power structure in Afghanistan--to have their voice heard politically rather than via violence. Otherwise, they're just marginalized. Either way, they will have to give up the goods on AQ to get anywhere.
If they want to remain in Afghanistan, they'll have to come to the table with Kabul or be relegated to tribal life in border regions of Pakistan--essentially where they were before they came to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. With the way the Pakis are handling things against their own insurgency problem, that wouldn't appear to be that appealing of a situation.
They seem to be doing a workable job of it elsewhere. Don't see why they couldn't handle the Taliban.Turquoise wrote:
So, do you think the Pakistanis actually would defeat the Taliban in that scenario?FEOS wrote:
That's essentially what I just said.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if they have nowhere to go in Afghanistan, won't they just stay in the less controlled regions of Pakistan? I know the Pakistani government is making some progress against the Taliban on their own land, but isn't Pakistan still mostly governed locally rather than by their national government?
If they want to remain in Afghanistan, they'll have to come to the table with Kabul or be relegated to tribal life in border regions of Pakistan--essentially where they were before they came to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. With the way the Pakis are handling things against their own insurgency problem, that wouldn't appear to be that appealing of a situation.
What worries me is that Pakistan might sign a truce with the Taliban in the border regions only to have them rise again 10 or 20 years later.FEOS wrote:
They seem to be doing a workable job of it elsewhere. Don't see why they couldn't handle the Taliban.Turquoise wrote:
So, do you think the Pakistanis actually would defeat the Taliban in that scenario?FEOS wrote:
That's essentially what I just said.
If they want to remain in Afghanistan, they'll have to come to the table with Kabul or be relegated to tribal life in border regions of Pakistan--essentially where they were before they came to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. With the way the Pakis are handling things against their own insurgency problem, that wouldn't appear to be that appealing of a situation.
Absent genocide, what else would you have them do? There's always a risk of having groups like that rise up again later.Turquoise wrote:
What worries me is that Pakistan might sign a truce with the Taliban in the border regions only to have them rise again 10 or 20 years later.FEOS wrote:
They seem to be doing a workable job of it elsewhere. Don't see why they couldn't handle the Taliban.Turquoise wrote:
So, do you think the Pakistanis actually would defeat the Taliban in that scenario?
Well uh... if said genocide only involves killing extremists and their allies... I'm not exactly against it.FEOS wrote:
Absent genocide, what else would you have them do? There's always a risk of having groups like that rise up again later.Turquoise wrote:
What worries me is that Pakistan might sign a truce with the Taliban in the border regions only to have them rise again 10 or 20 years later.FEOS wrote:
They seem to be doing a workable job of it elsewhere. Don't see why they couldn't handle the Taliban.
The Taliban isn't just dudes in turbans with AK-47s, Turq. It's an entire tribal culture. Men, women, and children. And those women and children have the same belief system the men do. You gonna off them, as well?Turquoise wrote:
Well uh... if said genocide only involves killing extremists and their allies... I'm not exactly against it.FEOS wrote:
Absent genocide, what else would you have them do? There's always a risk of having groups like that rise up again later.Turquoise wrote:
What worries me is that Pakistan might sign a truce with the Taliban in the border regions only to have them rise again 10 or 20 years later.
Eliminating people in the middle of nowhere whose only connection to the outside world seems to involve causing shitloads of trouble isn't exactly a thought I'm averse to.