http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...attlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/?page=1 This is something that has torqued me for a long time. It was implemented by that idiot McCrystal who mouthed off to a writer and got himself fired, then further pushed by the since-disgraced Patreus. It's hard to know how much came from their efforts to implement an idiotic counterinsurgency program that was premised on getting the taliban to love us or forced on them by Obama's radical appointees. To the guys who died needlessly and their grieving families, it doesn't really matter. The rules of engagement had many ridiculous provisions, but the main ones seemed to involve a requirement that enemy fighters have to be confirmed as carrying weapons to be shot at, plus a requirement that buildings not be targeted if civilians could be inside. Of course, these rules negated our main advantages, eg the ability to deploy air power and massacre the enemy as they tried to withdraw from an engagement( aircraft can't fire if they can't confirm they are carrying weapons); and the ability to take out hard targets with artillery or air power. In one incident, taliban were firing RPGs and heavy weapons from a house at pinned down troops. Commanders and lawyers wouldn't approve a strike because they were afraid civilians might be inside. Here's an idea. Make the freaking lawyers go out on patrol with the troops, so they can get a real close look at things. If their sorry asses are getting shot at, I'm guessing they will see things a little differently. It's typical liberalism at work. Let someone else pay the price for your exercise in moral superiority.
...along with the children of all Congressmen and the President. We'd be out of that shit hole licketyâsplit.