[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 5, 3:10*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:24*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

But who cares? 2pid, here's the dealio: going all the way back to the
beginning you have been wrong. Period.

Blowing up a building with at most a few snipers in it is wrong.

*What if those few snipers have a squad pinned down and a larger force
of
militants is rushing to the area? *The squad needs to pull out now but
can't while the snipers are in position. *Do you blow up the building
to save the squad?

"What if they see a team of insurgents assembling a nuclear bomb, have
a map to Jeruleselam and a recording of the Iranian President, as well
as a battalion of heavy battle tanks coming in behind the building to
reinforce the snipers?"

Um, moron? What I said initially (like in 2006) is that CAS is
appropriate for larger forces. You can go back and look, dum-dum.

You're quick to criticize with the benefit of hindsight while not
knowing at all what the situation was at the time the decision was
made.

But I do, 2pid. It's "obvious" to anybody with a little experience.

It was spelled out then, and has been spelled out several times since.
Recently our own military agreed that it was not a justified use of
force (see OP). We know what the situation was and what went wrong.
Eyes on target, absolute target ID, minimum force required, you know,
all the **** I told you about in 2006 that you have a 'differing POV'
about. LoL.

Duh.

I am not now nor ever have been advocating killing of civilians when
it can be avoided, but I'm also not going to advocate excessive risk
to our troops in action with unreasonable restrictions on use of
force. *

Define "excessive". Until now it's meant "any" when you say it.

It's up to our commanders to determine what is appropriate
based upon the circumstances of the moment.

Um, no it isn't, 2pid. That's why there are ROE. There are even
national-level ROE and "caveats" (I think I've seen you whine about
Germany's, for example). You can't exceed them without clearance from
WAY up. CGs don't usually delegate that authority and some are above
the level of the CG.

One commander just got relieved in Afghanistan, 2pid, and the incoming
CG will be reviewing the ROE. Does that tell you anything, dum-dum?

Oh, and since we invaded their country it is incumbent upon us to
accept much more risk than we expect the civilians there to accept.

Buh-bye, dimbulb. Time to go get some sun. LoL.

Duh.