"We were attacked treacherously. We came under fire from everywhere, but the rules of engagement prevent me from doing my job."

The utterly wrongheaded policy that has American troops in Afghanistan devoting the bulk of their time to hearts-and-minds initiatives and to behaving like social workers is...killing American troops. When America pretends to have no enemies, its enemies do not fall into line and behave accordingly. And yet Americans are not allowed to fight back.

Yet another Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Alert: "US casualties in Afghanistan provoke rage and frustration," by Jason Gutierrez in the Telegraph, February 1 (thanks to herr Oyal):

A hunger for revenge is palpable among US Marines as casualties grow on the frontline of the battle against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. 'My men want revenge - that is only natural,' says First Lieutenant Aaron MacLean. On a base near Marjah, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand province, Marines are grieving the deaths of a sergeant and corporal killed by the remote-controlled bombs that have become the scourge of the long-running conflict.

Commanders try to keep the men's rage in check, aware that winning over an Afghan public wary of the foreign military presence and furious about civilian casualties is as important as battlefield success.

And yet the only reason that they think it is even possible to win over a wary Afghan public is because they are ignorant of the nature and power of the doctrines of Islam regarding unbelievers.

"It causes a lot of frustration. My men want revenge - that is only natural," says First Lieutenant Aaron MacLean, 2nd Platoon commander of the 1st Battalion, 6th Regiment Charlie company.

"But I keep telling them that the rules are the rules for a reason. If we simply go crazy and start shooting at everything, in the long run we will lose this war because we will lose the support of the population."

First Lieutenant MacLean has learned his lessons well, but I wonder if he ever stops and asks himself why, after all these years in Afghanistan and all these hearts-and-minds initiatives, Americans still don't have the support of the population.

He too is frustrated, accusing the Taliban of manipulating the rules of engagement by using women and children as shields and shooting from hidden positions before dropping their weapons and standing out in the open.

"They know we can't shoot them if they don't carry guns or without positive identification. They are fighting us at another level now," MacLean said. [...]

Of course, Lieutenant. They are jihadis. They don't care about civilian casualties, but they know you do, and they know how to play the propaganda game, and they know that the mainstream media will aid and abet them as they play that game.

There follows a long account of a Taliban attack, and then:

"We were attacked treacherously. We came under fire from everywhere, but the rules of engagement prevent me from doing my job," said Lance Corporal Mark Duzick, who was in the unit that was ambushed.

Outside a tent housing the Marines' unit responsible for firing mortars stands an improvised cross bearing the inscription: "Here lies the 81st, death by stand down."...

While most are caused by the Taliban, the insurgents exploit civilian casualties to spread distrust among the public for foreign and Afghan troops.

As the nature of the fight has changed, with the Taliban increasingly using suicide attacks and IEDs, there had been no traditional winter hiatus and General Zahir Azimi, a defence ministry spokesman, said that spring is likely to be ferocious....

There should be a full-scale investigation of this in Washington. But there won't be, because most pols on both sides of the aisle still assume that it would be terrible to stop trying to be buddies to the Afghans and to fight a traditional war. They think we can actually win, i.e., create a stable and secure Afghanistan, by not fighting. Their naivete is probably incurable.

| 47 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

47 Comments

| Leave a comment

Either fight the war or get out. All or nothing.

Don't bother trying to win the "hearts and minds". Islam is a institution that discourages thinking. Both Allah and Mohammed do not display any compassion whatsoever.

Here are the graphics I came up with for this story.

All these poor people want is jobs, houses, schools...whoops cancel schools, they keep blowing those up... a part in government, and a share of incoming jizya...Especially the jizya part...and don't forget to feel subdued...If they get those things, they will forget all about jihad, Allah, Islam, and go for kufr gifts instead...How can they resist? A paycheck, a house with a white picket fence, a gas stove, a 52 inch TV, a flush toilet, a good woman or four, lots of kids, and the greatest kufr gifts of all...perpetual food stamps and Obama health care, all at US taxpayers expense...who says Americans aren't generous?...What Taliban Mahoundian wouldn't go for that?
Just lay down your gun, and you will be royally taken care of...'Hope and change' is on its way to Afghanistan...

Understand exactly what is going on here. American soldiers and Marines are being killed, and wounded, unnecessarily, because they are not being allowed, by their soi-disant "superiors," to take the kind of measures that, in other conflicts, would always have been allowed. They are expected to show trust for those they cannot possibly trust (and they have to "show trust" by endangering themselves), they are not allowed to fire if there are civilians nearby (and the locals have made sure that there will always and everywhere be civilians nearby), they are not even allowed to fire on those who they know have just fired on them, but suddenly drop their weapons and stand out, secure in the knowledge that the Americans will do nothing.

Are the generals at the top, are the civilians, well-pleased with themselves for this mad policy? They don't pay the piper, of course. They keep telling themselves that hearts and minds, unwinnable in the end because of Islam, can indeed be won. They can't. At most they can be temporarily rented, with the prospect, at any point, of changing sides, or reverting to full-bodied, full-bloodied Islam.

This sacrificing of officers and men is akin to the unnecesasary deaths caused by foolish commanders in World War I, in the trenches, with their crazed commands to "take" this or that enemy acreage across minefields, or still more, akin in the folly to that miserable commander of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War, the one who ordered an idiotic attack -- an attack immortalized by Tennyson in his famous poem.

But this business of "theirs not to reason why" won't be accepted today. Today, the men and women in Afghanistan, and their families at whom, have a perfect right to understand that the failure to grasp the nature of Islam, the failure to construct a Grand Strategy -- that is, one that deals with all the various threats from the adherents of Islam, emanating from the Camp of Islam -- based on a failure to come to grips with Islam itself however unpleasant the truths that will come out, and the need to deal with things in a quite different way (which also means that many now in power will have to recognize how wrong they have been, and many do not wish to do that, do not wish to look in the mirror and see that egg on their faces)-- means greater danger, and greater sacrifices, for Infidel troops in Afghanistan, as in Iraq before it, and after it -- Yemen, Somalia, the streets of major capitals in Europe, who knows?

I suppose it depends upon what Lt. MacLean and Jihad Watch are after. If what is sought is the right to fight rigorously full-force in accordance with the Just War Tradition and proper moral allowances for occasions of the Thomistic double effect principle, then the grievances are sound and should be addressed accordingly.

But if what is sought is to be able to blow apart any civilian who one does not like or poses an inconvienence or sense of ambiguity, then I think Lt. MacLean and Mr. Spencer need to learn to make do with operational procedures that insist on fundamental moral norms being observed.

When the Viet Cong were engaging in any unprincipled forms of guerrilla warfare, I wonder if Mr. Spencer was trying to chalk that up to the Quran as well. And I'm sure Hadith Qudsi and authenticated Hadith Nabawi hold the key to understanding whatever difficulties Americans had at winning hearts and minds in Danang and Khe Sahn.


When a war is being fought, strapped by liberal thinking, it can never be won. It is also disturbing when one looks at the trend over the past 9 years, coupled with the culmination of all the events recorded here at this site and elsewhere, the western world is progressively being transformed into 'Afghanistan', with the ever increasing dose of Islam imposed, even invited, upon us all. When will we ever blink?

MOSLEM "hearts and minds"?!

You can't win over what's not there to begin with.

Islam means peace & Muslims have won our hearts & minds since 9-11.

From post above...But if what is sought is to be able to blow apart any civilian who one does not like or poses an inconvienence or sense of ambiguity...

That's called murder...I don't think Spencer ever calls for anyone's murder...
I don't know if you have ever noticed, but governments never murder anyone, they just kill a lot of people...Sometimes they call that 'collateral damage'...I think your first paragraph is closer to correct...if you are going to have a war, win it or don't have it at all...Pretending that your having one when your not, is what is getting more people killed in Afghanistan, and elsewhere...

In Islam, there are no civilians.

There are only believers and the kuffar. Read your Qur'an.

Seems to me that, since senior commanders aren't willing to sacrifice their careers by standing against these stupid ROE but instead sacrifice the lives of their troops, some junior officers with combat command experience should resign their commissions in protest ~ willing to face the UCMJ ~ and by way of the attendant media attention ~ one hopes ~ force the issue into the light of day.

It won't stop until somebody in the AO is willing to risk a career. And that is unlikely.

Hugh et al. Please join in and contribute to the Guardian's Cif (comments is free). The place in infested with islamo fascists and anti-Semites.

Tanstaafl,

From what I know of Islam, both Mohammed and Abu Bakr seemed to have some recognition of civilian non-combatants and distinctions that should be drawn with regard to them.

And while I try to avoid ad hominem inspired comments, anybody who's an adherent of a religion that celebrates a supposed right to slaughter our unborn and virtually worships immoral eugenic bigots like Margaret Sanger should be more circumspect before making religious comments.

I agree with ebonystone - the bit about "hearts and minds of Islam" is a complete oxy-moron. Let our soldiers take care of business like they were trained to do. Here's an apropos quote from Independence Day:
"Payback's a bitch!"

NVUH

Ebonystone,

"You can't win over what's not there to begin with."

You said it all and I couldn't agree more.

I also wonder why the Generals, and Admirals, and others, don't stand up, and prefer to remain seated...Do they actually think this way of conducting a war is valid? Do they really think Rasalullahhaha Obama is a worthy commander in chief?
Have they all drank from Rasools kool aide cup? Have they all lost their gonads...are they sitting in glue?

From post above...From what I know of Islam, both Mohammed and Abu Bakr seemed to have some recognition of civilian non-combatants and distinctions that should be drawn with regard to them.

And just who are these 'civilians' and 'non-combatants' are you referring to? Certainly not kufr...All kufr are warring against Allah, and are combatants...The modern day jihadist has no problems with any such 'distinctions'...No one is exempt except other pious Mahoundians...and some of them keep a wary eye on each other...

Fairuzfan, The problem is that the muslim combatants in this war do not follow the altruistic practices of moral norms. That's why the Lietenant is angry and wants revenge. It is no different than the everyday attitude of the taliban. It's just that they have no compunction about using civilians in their warfair tactics. It baffles me that a man of your ability to articulate cannot see the destructive nature of islam just as it plain is. Wake up!

Well, yes, Duh Swami, the reference does include non-Muslim civilians. That's what plenty of Islamic mujtahid jurists and theologians hold.

And basic sense would dictate that it beggars belief that Mohammed and Abu Bakr were deriving warfare guidelines for the prospect of faithful, pious Muslims going to war against each other, something that I imagine was non-existent and, surely, unthinkable for them in their time.

While I agree that the employment of theological darura by some Islamic authorities can be morally unacceptable, that doesn't obscure or negate my key point here.

Imamerican, the fact that the Taliban engage in certain morally unacceptable activities does not intrinsically establish that such behavior is authoritatively taught and called for in anything reasonably passing as what appears to be contemporary mainstream orthodox Islam today, despite Taliban personnel presumably considering themselves to be faithful Muslims.

Just as the fact that any number of faithful American Christians did not hesitate to indiscriminately incinerate untold numbers of German and Japanese civilians during World War 2 makes such behavior acceptable to true Christian thought, which it most certainly is not.

Perhaps the Marines should wage war the way Muslims historically have, an example of which is the campaign against the Armenian enclave of Zeitoun. Having had a spot of bother with guerilla activity during the attempted genocide of 1894-95, the Ottoman Turks prevailed in 1915 (with the help of German weaponry and staff work) by the simple expedient of annihilating the entire population. Today the Turks still occupy Zeitoun, which they renamed Suleymanli.

Well, yes, Duh Swami, the reference does include non-Muslim civilians. That's what plenty of Islamic mujtahid jurists and theologians hold.

Can you cite the sources? And does that negate 9:5, 8:39, 47:4 and all the other 'fight the kufr' verses? And if that's true why are Mahoundians killing civilian non-combatants, called kufr around the world? It would seem that the mujtahid
jurists and theologians should be talking to these other guys who don't seem to understand what a kufr non-combatant is...
But I wont hold my breath...

"...many now in power will have to recognize how wrong they have been, and many do not wish to do that..."

I agree wholeheartedly.

But how can our leaders admit they are wrong while obliterating the very lives of those who make it possible for these power-mad egoists to attempt ONLY to put themselves in the history books at all cost? In the meantime, they are editing these same history books to cast aspersions on our heroic soldiers & make room for their super-inflated faces & heads...

"But if what is sought is to be able to blow apart any civilian who one does not like or poses an inconvienence or sense of ambiguity..."

Not liking; no. Posing an inconvenience; no. But if the "ambiguity" presents a potential mortal danger to our troops and to civilians in the area, and if the sense of the potential mortal danger of that "ambiguity" is based on hundreds of actual incidents of freakishly fanatical suicide bombings in the past by members pullulating out of that civilian population inspired by the same Islam that civilian population fanatically follows (e.g., thousands of ordinary civilian Afghanis materializing in rage recently, accompanied by gunfire, all over a rumor about Korans being mistreated) -- then hell yes, blow those civilians apart.

"They think we can actually win, i.e., create a stable and secure Afghanistan, by not fighting. Their naivete is probably incurable."

Agreed, Robert. Yeah, and which side IS Obama on? Not that of our American soldiers, it seems! What, did he send our troops over there to be slaughtered? ...I wonder.

Obama is bringing us down, both militarily and economically. WTH he hasn't been impeached yet is beyond me ....

Read the Qur'an. It divides the world into believers and kuffar. No other religion does this.

All moslems must strive to advance Islam until the "very trees and rocks cry out - "There is a Jew hiding behind me! Come, Muslims, and kill him!"

Save your tuo torgue arguments for the PC crowd. I am talking about Islam. Stick to the subject.

If I was an Afghani that wanted to appose the Taliban's rule, I would think long and hard about acting on it. The Taliban are going to be there long after the Coalition leaves. It would be foolhardy to put your life on the line at the whim of the ever changing American administrations, and foreign policies.

"But I keep telling them that the rules are the rules for a reason. If we simply go crazy and start shooting at everything, in the long run we will lose this war because we will lose the support of the population."
..................

What rot. As though the only alternative to fighting with one hand tied behind their backs was to "simply go crazy and start shooting at everything"—something we have *never* embraced.

"fairuzfan" wrote:

Just as the fact that any number of faithful American Christians did not hesitate to indiscriminately incinerate untold numbers of German and Japanese civilians during World War 2
..................

"fairuzfan" shows his hatred of Americans once again here, where principled wagers of a just, defensive war are considered morally equivalent to—or worse than—those responsible for the Rape of Nanking and the Death Camps. As soon as Axis aggression ceased, we launched the unprecedented Marshall Plan.

You have to win first. This administration, especially, seems to have completely abandoned the concept of victory.

Whether any sort of real victory is attainable in a place like Afghanistan is a valid question, or course—but that the idea of winning does not even seem to be on the table cannot but help seem troubling.

fairuzfan wrote:

"... the fact that the Taliban engage in certain morally unacceptable activities does not intrinsically establish that such behavior is authoritatively taught and called for in anything reasonably passing as what appears to be contemporary mainstream orthodox Islam today, despite Taliban personnel presumably considering themselves to be faithful Muslims."

That was beautiful. An obvious admission of certain "morally unacceptable" Taliban activities, imediately followed by an audacious assertion for which you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your claim about how "contemporary mainstream orthodox Islam" is taught.

The half-assed religious moral equivalence argument that followed, with your reference to the, "...any number of faithful American Christians did not hesitate to indiscriminately incinerate untold numbers of German and Japanese civilians during World War 2...".

Good stuff. As if there could be a logical ideological correlation between Muslims who claim Islam as their direct impetus as opposed to Christians, who do not.

“From what I know of Islam, both Mohammed and Abu Bakr seemed to have some recognition of civilian non-combatants and distinctions that should be drawn with regard to them.”
------
[b]It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)[/b]

And please don't post conflicting verses, everyone knows Islam has hundreds of conflicting instructions, how better to keep everyone arguing and at everyone else's throats over interpretation?

Don't you think it strange that God would pick an illiterate man to compile the one perfect book for all time and then proceed to fill it with contradictory, "abrogating" instructions? Well, only "strange" if GOD dictated it. Perfectly logical, really, if someone ELSE did.

About 6 months ago I was seriously considering reenlisting in an Army Reserve infantry unit. As a vet of the USMC infantry I missed military life (well, I should say some aspects of it...), but not so much as to go back full-time.

For various reasons I did not reenlist. It would be unfair to call it the only reason, but I can tell you that the main reason was I could not put myself in harms way knowing how bad the rules of engagement are.

I take my hat off and applaud those, such as my cousin who is in the USMC, with a COMBAT unit, and getting ready to deploy to Afganistan. He knows full well he has one hand tied behind his back.

Its simply disgraceful.

Its questionable whether we will ever win "hearts" and "minds" in Afganistan (did we in Iraq?), but especially not when the "regular" afganis know we are going to bail out soon enough. It doesn't matter if its 1 year or 5 or ten. They know were leaving. Most of all they know we are not fighting to win....


http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV

I wonder if any of those pondering the suicide rates (which in turn reflect a wider demoralization) among the troops dares to suggest that for many troops, the perceived difference between the mission that they are given, and what they learn of the locals (Iraqs, Afghans, Pakistanis), could lead to such demoralization. This is not a war, given the way tht it is being fought, that can be believed in quite the way the war against the Nazis and Japanese militarists --a no-holds-barred war, thank god -- can be believed in.

Anyone in the Pentagon, or Fort Leavenworth, or West Point, or Fort Jackson, or Fort Bragg, or Fort This or Fort That, dare to raise this issue, and not merely to think it?

Are we convinced, rationally convinced, that the people in DC themselves actually BELIEVE the "hearts and minds" business, or BELIEVE that the rules of engagement will work?

I'm not so sure that they all actually believe that stuff.

I'm not fully clear on what they stand to gain, or think they stand to gain by saying it.

But I simply can't imagine that they all believe it.

Découvrez un site en Français contenant des vidéos sous titrées de Robert spencer, et des films sous-titres en français tels que 3rd Jihad, what the west needs to know about Islam, ou Fitna, plus beaucoup d'articles originaux en français sur l'Islam et les rapports de la foi chrétienne et de la société. Tout nouveau! Soutenez nous et rendez nous visite! Et bravo à Jihadwatch pour tout leur travail!

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/01/fitna-version-francaise-geert-wilders-part-12

Foolish fairuzfan falls flat on his face yet again with his false parallels between islam and Christianity. This mohammedan seems to enjoy getting spanked, doesn't he?

Fairuzfan:

"...anybody who's an adherent of a religion that celebrates a supposed right to slaughter our unborn and virtually worships immoral eugenic bigots like Margaret Sanger should be more circumspect before making religious comments."

Christians do NOT celebrate a "right" to abortion. Indeed, my only beef with the killer of George Tiller (the late term abortionist who got shot in Kansas) is that Tiller should have been hanged after due process of law. As for Margaret Sanger, I agree that she was an evil Hitler in skirts and it is a screaming outrage that a penny of tax money should go to her organization.

And, I agree that the atrocities of the Viet Cong have nothing to do with the Qu'ran. They were, after all, adherents of a religion whose Shahada was "There is no god but historical necessity, and Marx is her prophet".

However, war is not a pleasant business. And, pray tell, how would such eminent Muslim rulers as Temur Lenk or Babur Shah (had he not been an Afghan himself) have prosecuted a war in Afghanistan? And don't tell me they wouldn't have gone after those who harbored the killers of their loyal subjects!

The followers of Islam send forth their children to destroy life.

God the Father sent forth His only begotten Son the Lord Jesus Christ to give life.

A Contrast Between 
Mohammed and Jesus Christ

Mohammed was the prophet of war; Christ is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).



Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith (Acts 12:2; 2 Tim. 4:7).

Mohammed promoted persecution against the "infidels"; Christ forgave and converted the chief persecutor (1 Tim. 1:13-15).



Mohammed was the taker of life; Christ is the giver of life (John 10:27-28).



Mohammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ murdered none but saved many (compare John 12:48).



Mohammed's method was COMPULSION; Christ's aim was voluntary CONVERSION (Acts 3:19).

Mohammed practiced FORCE; Christ preached FAITH (John 6:29,35).

Mohammed was a WARRIOR; Christ is a DELIVERER (Col. 1:13; 1 Thess.1:10).



Mohammed conquered his enemies with the sword; Christ conquered his enemies with another kind of sword, the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12; Acts 2:37).



Mohammed said to the masses, "Convert or die!"; Christ said, "Believe and live!" (John 6:47; 11:25-26).

Mohammed was swift to shed blood (Rom. 3:15-17); Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of many (Eph. 1:7).



Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).



Mohammed declared a holy war (Jihad) against infidels; Christ achieved a holy victory on Calvary's cross (Col. 2:14-15) and His followers share in that victory (John 16:33).



Mohammed constrained people by conquest; Christ constrained people by love (2 Cor. 5:14).



Modern terrorists derive their inspiration from Mohammed and carry out their despicable atrocities in the name of his god Allah; Christians derive their inspiration from the One who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9).



Some modern day disciples of Mohammed responded to the terrorist attacks by cheering in the streets; modern day disciples of Christ are deeply grieved at past atrocities carried out by those who were "Christians" in name only (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).



Many Muslims are peaceful and peace-loving because they do not strictly follow the teachings of their founder; many Christians are peaceful and peace-loving because they do strictly follow the teachings of their Founder (Rom. 12:17-21).



Mohammed called upon his servants to fight; Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight . . .but now is My kingdom not from here" (John 18:36)



Mohammed ordered death to the Jews (see A.Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press [1975], p. 369); Christ ordered that the gospel be preached "to the Jew first" (Rom. 1:16).



The Koran says, "Fight in the cause of Allah" (Qu'ran 2.244); the Bible says, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (Eph. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:4).



The Koran says, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" (Qu'ran 9.5); Christ said, "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

The Koran says, "I will inspire terror into the hearts of unbelievers" (Qu'ran 8.12); God inspires His terror (fear, reverential awe) into the hearts of believers (Isaiah 8:13).



The Koran (Qu'ran) is a terrorist manual which condones fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam; the Bible is a missionary manual to spread the gospel of peace to all the world (Rom. 10:15).



Mohammed's Mission was to conquer the world for Allah; Christ's mission was to conquer sin's penalty and power by substitutionary atonement (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).



Mohammed considered Christ a good prophet; Christ pronounced Mohammed to be a false prophet (John 10:10; Matt. 24:11).

Mohammed claimed that there was but one God, Allah; Christ claimed that He Himself was God (John 10:30-31; John 8:58-59; John 5:18; John 14:9).



Mohammed's Tomb: OCCUPIED!
Christ's tomb: EMPTY!

The new ROE are a disgrace and an outrage and as a result there will be many more killed and wounded soldiers.

The blood of these brave warriors will be upon the heads of the politicians and the armchair Generals that have created and support this abomination!

Furthermore, this politically correct insanity will do great harm to our effort to defeat the enemy.

Those responsible for this should tried for treason!

Three important links concerning the ROE.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Battlefield-Rules-Putting-US-Troops-at-Risk/

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=roe12.16.09.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/us-troops-battle-taliban-afghan-rules//print/

Hear, hear! ...to both of your comments.

Bosch Fawstin wrote:

Here are the graphics I came up with for this story.
......................

Excellent work, Bosch. Pigman has his own "rules of engagement"!

Here's an idea.

Mr Fitzgerald creates an alternative and ruthlessly practical 'rules of engagement' (based on cold hard knowledge of why and how Muslims wage war on non-Muslims) for the use of Infidel soldiers who are currently stuck with the job of attempting to herd Muslim kilkenny cats in Iraq and/ or Afghanistan. The aim is that those soldiers shall have an even chance of surviving their term of service, and returning home with a grimly realistic knowledge of Islam-on-the-ground that can then be shared with the home folks.

These alternative 'rules of engagement' must cover the barest essentials and be couched in down to earth language that, as he is fond of saying, 'cats and dogs can understand'; for they need to be comprehended by the humblest, least-educated grunt.

Mr Bosch Fawstin can then add suitably vivid illustrations.

The resultant entertaining, colourful and informative pamphlet is circulated discreetly by all such jihadwatchers as have informal contact with members of those non-Muslim militaries that are currently deployed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Typo correction

"Those responsible for this should be tried for treason!"

Important reading.

The full article is here:

The Washington Times
Originally published 05:45 a.m., November 16, 2009, updated 05:33 p.m., November 16, 2009
U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules

Sara A. Carter

KASHK-E-NOKHOWD, Afghanistan | Army Capt. Casey Thoreen wiped the last bit of sleep from his eyes before the sun rose over his isolated combat outpost.

His soldiers did the same as they checked and double-checked their weapons and communications equipment. Ahead was a dangerous foot patrol into the heart of Taliban territory.

"Has anyone seen the [Afghan National Army] guys?" asked Capt. Thoreen, 30, the commander of Blackwatch Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment with the 5th Stryker Brigade. "Are they not showing up?"

A soldier, who looked ghostly in the reddish light of a headlamp, shook his head.

"We can't do anything if we don't have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]," said a frustrated Capt. Thoreen.

"We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules," he said. "Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It's not easy for anyone out here."

"Karzai 12" refers to Afghanistan's newly re-elected president, Hamid Karzai, and a dozen rules set down by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, to try to keep Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum.

"It's a framework to ensure cultural sensitivity in planning and executing operations," said Capt. Thoreen. "It's a set of rules and could be characterized as part of the ROE," he said, referring to the rules of engagement.

Dozens of U.S. soldiers who spoke to The Washington Times during a recent visit to southern Afghanistan said these rules sometimes make a perilous mission even more difficult and dangerous.

Many times, the soldiers said, insurgents have escaped because U.S. forces are enforcing the rules. Meanwhile, they say, the toll of U.S. dead and injured is mounting.

By mid-November, Capt. Thoreen's unit had lost five soldiers to suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Many more had been wounded and three of their Stryker vehicles had been destroyed.

In his Aug. 30 assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which was leaked to the press, Gen. McChrystal said that the legitimacy of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had been "severely damaged … in the eyes of the Afghan people" because of "an over-reliance on firepower and force protection."

To succeed, he wrote, "ISAF will have to change its operating culture to pursue a counterinsurgency approach that puts the Afghan people first." This entails "accepting some risk in the short term [but] will ultimately save lives in the long term."

The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on 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.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

The full article is here:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/us-troops-battle-taliban-afghan-rules//print/

Important reading.

The Washington Times
Originally published 05:45 a.m., November 16, 2009, updated 05:33 p.m., November 16, 2009
U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules

Sara A. Carter

KASHK-E-NOKHOWD, Afghanistan | Army Capt. Casey Thoreen wiped the last bit of sleep from his eyes before the sun rose over his isolated combat outpost.

His soldiers did the same as they checked and double-checked their weapons and communications equipment. Ahead was a dangerous foot patrol into the heart of Taliban territory.

"Has anyone seen the [Afghan National Army] guys?" asked Capt. Thoreen, 30, the commander of Blackwatch Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment with the 5th Stryker Brigade. "Are they not showing up?"

A soldier, who looked ghostly in the reddish light of a headlamp, shook his head.

"We can't do anything if we don't have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]," said a frustrated Capt. Thoreen.

"We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules," he said. "Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It's not easy for anyone out here."

"Karzai 12" refers to Afghanistan's newly re-elected president, Hamid Karzai, and a dozen rules set down by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, to try to keep Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum.

"It's a framework to ensure cultural sensitivity in planning and executing operations," said Capt. Thoreen. "It's a set of rules and could be characterized as part of the ROE," he said, referring to the rules of engagement.

Dozens of U.S. soldiers who spoke to The Washington Times during a recent visit to southern Afghanistan said these rules sometimes make a perilous mission even more difficult and dangerous.

Many times, the soldiers said, insurgents have escaped because U.S. forces are enforcing the rules. Meanwhile, they say, the toll of U.S. dead and injured is mounting.

By mid-November, Capt. Thoreen's unit had lost five soldiers to suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Many more had been wounded and three of their Stryker vehicles had been destroyed.

In his Aug. 30 assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which was leaked to the press, Gen. McChrystal said that the legitimacy of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had been "severely damaged … in the eyes of the Afghan people" because of "an over-reliance on firepower and force protection."

To succeed, he wrote, "ISAF will have to change its operating culture to pursue a counterinsurgency approach that puts the Afghan people first." This entails "accepting some risk in the short term [but] will ultimately save lives in the long term."

The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on 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.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

The full article is here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/us-troops-battle-taliban-afghan-rules//print/

if we change our rules of engagement,it should be done on the hush. after they dropped their weapons and walked out from amidst the civilians the taliban were hiding amongst the smirks on their face would disappear in in a red mist.

Yes, I see Hugh's point of the Americans not being able to really win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, not in the long term. Because they are Muslims, their spiritual and political leaders set them up against the Infidels, especially the Americans. And even education, which helps, does not guarantee the Afghans really coming over to the Democratic side.

But, in my desperation, I theorize: What if the West at least creates areas of refuge for those disappointed with Islam? Kabul seems to be such a place a little bit. There is this man: The Lion of Kabul, who makes seemingly t-shirts that are pro-democracy, pro-America. He openly defies the Taliban.

I don't know how and where we may initiate safe havens for ex-Muslims or those Muslims that do support democracy over theocracy. But if we do we should let people sign contracts, swear oaths about loyalty to democratic rules. This will never be foolproof, I well know, but it will give us the juridic power to imprison or extradite people, back into the Islamic wilderness. We should create that right more and more, both in Afghanistan and in EACA (EuropeAmerica-Canada-Australia). Due to some people not belonging in free societies, as the French minister said about a Moroccan man the other day.

Once there is a free society that requires a minimal contract, loyalty to have the right to be a citizen of it, on pain of very real exile from it, then Afghans could choose.

And that means that many young women could flee away from their oppressors. If only we could offer them a safe haven, on just signing a democracy-loyalty-contract. If we were only able to throw out all those who turn out to be hypocrites, enemies!

Then our troops would be much better motivated to defend those choosing democracy's side, those who are held accountable for that choice. Those that have chosen against theocracy. And our troops could be in part batalions of highly motivated women perhaps!

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter