Letter to the editor:

Afghanistan strategy sacrifices U.S. troops

Bob Jack, North Las Vegas

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 | 2 a.m.

There is terrible news for our ground troops in Afghanistan. Airstrikes under the Obama administration, based on direct orders issued by the U.S. Command, will highly restrict the use of air support normally used to protect Americans on the ground who depend on it.

The use of air drone strikes to take out prospective high-value terrorist targets will also be limited. The reason: to protect Afghan civilians who are human shields for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

These new rules of engagement play directly into the hands of the enemy and will lead to a certain increase in casualties for American ground troops and a reduction in the hits of high-value targets.

This misguided policy is a very bad idea. Taliban and al-Qaida leaders and fighters will be able to move around with impunity while our ground troops become vulnerable targets without normal air support in the firefights in which they are sometimes ambushed and outnumbered.

The Obama administration thereby has chosen to make sacrificial lambs out of American ground troops to placate the local Afghan tribes. This is inexcusable policy!

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By POWERPLAY

6/23/09 at 3:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Once again America plays by a set of rules that the enemy dos not and again we might lose another war because of it Nice guys don't win wars they lose them. We spend billions and billions of dollars every year on the department of defense and in the end this is what we get for it. NOTHING BUT ANOTHER ONE IN THE LOST COLUMN. (KOREAN WAR, 1950 - 1953 DRAW) (VIETNAM WAR, 1965 - 1973 LOST) (DESERT STORM, 1991) DRAW, WE DID NOT FINISH THE JOB) (GULF WAR, 2003 DRAW, STILL NOT SETTLED CAN'T GET OUT, IRAQ STILL NOT YET READY TO GO IT ALONE) (AFGHANISTAN CONFLICT, 2001 STILL ENGAGED) 9/11 COST US ABOUT 50 BILLION DOLLARS IT ONLY COST AL-QAIDA ABOUT $500.000 DOLLARS! ARE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOTHING BUT A BIG JOKE.
By Future

6/23/09 at 6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Today Obama has direct that troops on the ground in Afghanistan have to "retreat under fire" from buildings.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new...

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence" -- not the number of militants killed.

"...if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," said Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a U.S. military spokesman.

Why are still in Afghanistan if we are just going to cut and run? This is not a fight we can win.
By labdaddy

6/23/09 at 7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

America no longer has the stomach to win wars. If our parents and granparents were as spineless as we've become, Most of Western Europe would be speaking German and the war in the Pacific would have dragged on for who knows how long with countless more lives lost.

If the Commander in Chief can't stand the big guns, he needs to get off the main deck.
By SgtRock

6/23/09 at 7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Good letter and posts.

If we are not going to fight to win then let's get the hell out of their.

Now, we do not have a plan to win (neither did Bush).

We are going to be in there for a very very long time and fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

The enemy is determined.

If Obama had the nerve then he would be drawing up the plans to send in a massive wave of troops into western Pakistan.

That is the ONLY way to end this.

But that is not going to happen.

So we are going to play this game of cat and mouse for decades.
By neiman1

6/23/09 at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

If you send our troops to war, let them fight a war. If you want some policemen in a far away land, skip it.
By diverpilot

6/27/09 at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

What are we doing in Afghanistan besides trying to protect the civilians who, more often than not, are aiding the Taliban?

We lost the war when we began paying the Taliban for shooting at our troops and falsely accusing our troops of killing civilians. And then we apologize, (which in Afghanistan is a mark of shame.)

Congress recently rejected an amendment calling for an exit strategy from Afghanistan. Ike Skelton is quoted: Focusing on an exit strategy may well reinforce a perception among the Afghans that we are not committed to protecting them from the Taliban.

We cannot protect Afghan civilians from the Taliban.
They are one and the same!!

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question