Are Afghanistan War Casualties Mounting While Obama Votes Present?

Afghanistan offered a convenient solution: Obama held it up as the "good" war that he was determined to win, unlike the "bad" war in Iraq that he would end. He promised a military surge in Afghanistan, and he dared John McCain and the outgoing administration to get to his right on the issue. Obama continued the approach beyond the primary season. When Jim Lehrer moderated a presidential debate last fall, he asked the candidates whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan, and if so, how many, and when. "Yes, I think we need more troops." Obama responded. "I've been saying that for over a year now."

Fast forward one year later and what do we find? Obama fired the Bush Commander and replaced him with General McChrystal who until last week Obama had only talked to once on the phone in the last 100 days. Obama Administration put new Rules of Engagement (ROE) in place that protects Afghan civilians while putting our troops at risk. (See the article below about how the Afghan people feel about that -- they want a more aggressive military not less against the Taliban.) General McChrystal sent in an assessment the end of August that he needs 40,000 more troops in addition to the 21,000 that were sent in the spring in order to win the war.

Now we have the National Security Advisor disagreeing with the McChrystal assessment about more troops. Most Americans believe the Commanders on the ground are better equipped to make the assessment then someone sitting in the White House.

Ten American military lost their lives in Afghanistan this weekend after President Obama met for 25 minutes including photo ops with the American General McChrystal and his wife on Friday but did not commit to more troops. Obama had never met the General and only talked to him once on the phone before this past week. Obama squeezed 25 whole minutes for the General after meeting with the IOC for over four hours for the City of Chicago which came in 4th out of 4 cities with only 18 votes.
In the one instance this weekend, hundreds of insurgents attacked a pair of isolated outposts in eastern Afghanistan, killing eight US soldiers and several Afghan policemen in the deadliest battle in 15 months. Scores more Afghan policemen were reportedly captured by the Talban.

In the other an Afghan policeman opened fire on the American soldiers with whom he was working in central Wardak province, killing two and injuring three.

Some of those soldiers who were pinned down asked for air cover but received none. Is this the result of the new Rules of Engagement (ROE) that were implemented this summer by General McChrystal at the request of the Obama Administration that keep Afghan civilians safe including the Taliban and leave our military as sitting ducks?


Look at this picture and tell us how much contempt Obama has for the military general. Looks to us like Obama's lecture didn't change the General's mind and that Obama is not happy. Tonight we discovered this article once again coming from the British media not the American media which brings into question the objectivity of the American media.

Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."

Excerpt: See London Telegraph for Full Article

What we find remarkable is the Afghan people who want the Taliban bombed and taken out even if they are in villages as pointed out in this article along with the Rules the Air Force has to follow to bomb the ENEMY.

Afghans Protest New Rules of Engagement

September 28, 2009: The U.S. is increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that the Americans act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk. This is an unexpected side effect of a change, three months ago, of the U.S. rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan.

This was in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders have to decide who they shall respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do?

(snip)

Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming civilians.

The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.

The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.

Excerpt: See Full Article at Strategypage.com

We heard at the IOC how much Michelle Obama sacrificed to be there and be away from the children but what do the Obama's do on Saturday? Go out to eat for their Anniversary. How about celebrating with their children like a lot of parents do?
At least they didn't go to NYC on the American taxpayer's dime so we should be grateful we guess.


If the MIA media wants to talk about what Michelle sacrificed to go to Copenhegan and party with the IOC, Ophrah and others, go ahead but they better be prepared for the blowback from Americans who are disgusted with wasting over $1M on the trip to have Chicago come in 4 out of 4 and Obama meeting with the Afghanistan General for only 25 minutes while being with the IOC for over four hours. Michelle was there for three days on taxpayer dollars which brings up the question since it was for Chicago, why didn't Chicago pick up the tab?

The people who are sacrificing are the men and women of our military and their families not Michelle Obama. We have ten soldiers who sacrificed their lives and ten families whose lives who will never be the same after learning of the deaths of their young men.

Obama needs to stop stalling and make a decision before we continue to lose more lives due to his enbolding the Taliban and other terrorists groups with his rhetoric and new ROEs that put the civilians over the lives of our military. Now the Taliban can hide in villages and pick off our troops and our troops are supposed to retreat.

We refuse to believe this is the hope and change the people wanted when they elected an inexperienced person to be President who loved to vote 'present' instead of taking a stance while in the IL Senate.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the military and their families who have lost loved ones and friends this weekend.