On Jun 4, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:27*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
The defense official said Wednesday that a military investigation
faulted some of the actions of American troops in air strikes May 4
that killed dozens of Afghan civilians in Farah province.
"Errors were made" in the attack, the official acknowledged on
condition of anonymity, discussing one of the preliminary findings on
an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul
and bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in
Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/...us_afghanistan
2pid will say "yes", that the tactic used is entirely circumstantial.
I say "no" and at least two incoming commanding general officers agree
with me.
Oh well, I'm sure 2pid's 'differing POV' is equally valid. LoL.
*It pretty sad that you stoop to such gross misrepresentations of what
our
military commanders have actually said.
No misrepresentation at all, 2pid. They both agree with me.
"Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of the 82nd Airborne
Division, responded that he planned to use close air support for
troops only when needed to protect them and to complete the mission."
What part of this statement says the use of air support does not
depend upon the circumstances of the situation? * *Hint: Nothing
Um, indeed there is, 2pid. There are two conditions necessary in his
statement. It's an "and" statement, not an "or" statement.
You cut this part, 2pid, which has always been my point: "And he said
air strikes would be used carefully."
And you missed this part, which has also been my point: "...bred deep
resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan
have also enraged Muslims worldwide."
And you missed this, which has also been another point I made: "A
report Wednesday by analysts at the think tank Center for a New
American Security said that in order to turn around the Afghanistan/
Pakistan problem, the United States must "rapidly triage" its
priorities. "Protecting the population must take precedence over all
other considerations," the report said." (i.e. force protection as an
example)
This apparently didn't register with you either: "McChrystal said that
if confirmed, he will review all existing rules of engagement and all
tactical directives. But American military commanders on a number of
occasions already have reviewed and rewritten the rules — including
those on bombing missions and on how special forces operate — in an
effort to avoid Afghan casualties.
Rules tightened in a review last year may not have been followed by
troops on May 4, said the official who spoke about the investigation."
If you reviewed what I've said (and if you were smart enough and
experienced enough to understand it) it is that airstrikes are *never*
the right call against a very small group of insurgents with small
arms, that you *must* have eyes on target and *positively* ID what
you're dropping bombs on, that airstrikes are more appropriate for
massed formations, that while force protection is always a
consideration it is not always the *primary* consideration and that
civilian casualties will do more toward mission failure in an
insurgency like this than almost anything else.
So the tactic remains available depending on the circumstances of the
situation.
Duh. Pin your hat on that, 2pid. LoL.
I've never claimed mistakes don't happen, I have said that ruling out
the use of air support under any circumstance
I've never said "any circumstance", dum-dum. Ever.
Imbecile. LOL!
to prevent mistakes and
civilian casualties is to put our troops in unreasonable danger.
"Preventing civilian casualties puts our troops in unreasonable
danger."
The obverse of this imbecilic statement is "Not preventing civilian
casualties makes mission failure very much more likely".
But Shhtard is sitting in Minnesota swatting mosquitoes and obviously
cares little about the safety of our forces in Afghanistan.
LOL! What a one-dimensional little character you are. And I emphasize
the "dim" in that statement.
Um, 2pid? Remember when you were trying to pin the same kind of
argument on me regarding the use of FA in the Swat Valley?
Hm. What was it I said? Oh yes: "If you must use it, use it wisely."
Yes, mistakes do happen. One of them is calling in CAS when you're
against 2-4 snipers in a building. Another is not having eyes on and
an absolute positive ID of the target. Another is prioritizing force
protection above all else (if that was a valid position then General
Petraeus should be tried for exposing his force by moving them off of
FOBs). Another (perhaps the biggest one of all) is having an attitude
like yours (protecting against civilian casualties is more of a
nuisance than it's worth).
As I said, 2pid: they both agree with me and not you. I'm very sorry,
but your 'differing POV' isn't valid here. LoL.