Monday, June 28, 2010

"I fought for you"

If you are in the mood to get a little emotional, watch the video below. It was emailed to me by a friend. Watching it made me realize how grateful I am that Gen. Petraeus is now back in command so that our men and women don't have to fight a war shackled by ridiculous and ineffective rules of engagement. I mean, why even put them in harms way if they can't defend themselves?


  1. Friend of Liberty BelleJune 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM

    Even with Petraeus they will be fighting with one hand tied behind their back. It is the liberal America way. It is just like our energy policy. Don't use our resources rationally and responsibly, lets tie one hand behind our back and give billions of dollars to our enemies!
    Why in the world do we put up with this? Allowing our soldiers to be in harms way with stupid engagement rules and then having an energy policy set by left wing kooks that enables our enemies again.
    What has happened to America? How did we get in these ridiculous positions? And how in the world did Barney Frank get to reform what he broke? We are in the twilight zone.

  2. Thank you so much for sharing our video. We intended to move people to both reflect on the greatness of all of our veterans and also teach our youth about what it means to be a patriot. On behalf of The Sound Tank, I thank ALL of our veterans and our current service men and women. We honor you.
    ~ Josh Pies,

  3. While I have nothing but respect for the American veterans who sacrificed so much while fighting off the brutal Nazi/Japanese occupations in Europe and Asia, I have to ask another question:

    If we dropped the "ridiculous rules of engagement" in Afghanistan, then how would what we are doing be different from what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan 30 years ago?

    Remember, the reason we originally when into Afghanistan was because Al Quada was based there. But by all accounts Al Quada has not been active in Afghanistan for many years, so the people we're fighting now are the same people the Russians fought a generation ago.

    The enemy we're fighting now in Afghanistan has no interest in America at all. They just don't want us there, which is understandable. We certainly wouldn't want the Chinese Army occupying parts of Washington State

    The reason we're there now isn't because the Taliban threaten the Freedom of Americans. They don't. The reason is the assumption that they will allow their country to be a base for Al Quada or other terrorists as they did before. So the objective is to install a government that will be friendly to us.

    Unfortunately, more aggressive rules of engagement will lead to more civilian casualties, which will make more people hate Americans and more likely to support groups hostile to Americans, like Taliban or Al Quada.

    So there's the problem. Our larger objective for Afghanistan is a stable government which is friendly to the America. But the Army is much better at killing people and breaking things than making friends, which is what Obama and McCrystal was trying to do.

    I'd like to suggest what the best answer is, but I really don't know. But stepping up the brutality won't work for the Americans any better than it worked for the Russians.

  4. Dancar- I disagree with quite a few things you said (big surprise, right?), but I understand your apprehension, though I think it is unwarranted.
    1. Our military is actually very, very good at making friends. I know this because I know a lot of people in the military and I know that most of their mission now revolves around the "hearts and minds" tactic (this tactic actually started under Petraeus when he had the soldiers move out of the bases and into the neighborhoods with the people, building schools, water systems, etc.)
    2. The same argument you make was made against the surge, and the argument was wrong then, as it is wrong now. In order to secure the country long enough for stability (or close) to set in, and for the people to feel safe enough to work with the Americans, we need to be able to kill bad guys. Right now the ROE's are so overly prohibitive that we are losing this war.
    3. Petraeus is not going to "step up the brutality." He is an extremely smart General that knows what the risks are when civilians are killed, and he knows that terrain and culture very well. However, as it stands now, our soldiers can be fired on from a building, over and over again, pinned down, and until they can guarantee that the building is 100% free of civilians, they are not allowed to shoot back. Literally. And a lot of our soldiers have died as a direct result of this rule when they didn't have to die.

    I think if you are fighting a war, you should be able to shoot back. Otherwise, we should get our men and women out. I trust Gen. Petraeus to find the right balance of what is needed, what we can afford, and how we can continue to "make friends." I trust that he is much smarter than the Russians.

  5. Dancars Fantasy Island BrotherJune 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM

    Dancar needs to go live with the Taliban. And if we listened to him we all would have to.

  6. To Fantasy Island:

    You seem to have less faith in the Second Amendment then most TP's.

  7. Liberty Belle, Only time will tell, but I am afraid that Dancar has got it right: stepping up brutality won't work any better than it worked for the Russians. We could revise the ROE and maybe save the lives of some of our soldiers, initially, but we would also end up killing more innocent bystanders, make more enemies, and have to kill more people in order to protect our soldiers. And for what? Our aims in Afghanistan and Iraq are both grandiose (introduce democracy, peace, moderation) and vague (How do we do this? How do we know when the job is done?). And when we are confronted with failure, it will not be because we had to fight with one hand tied behind our back -- it will be because of confusion and immodesty of the aims that we brought to whole sorry business to begin with.

  8. Great great video, Liberty Belle. You are A PATRIOT!!


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.