We all were beaming with pride and awe as Army Capt. William Swenson received his Medal of Honor recently. But did you know it was delayed for political reasons? Swenson had dared to question the rules of engagement that were killing his comrades in arms around him. But during the battle, Swenson also repeatedly radioed superiors at a nearby base to request air and artillery support to rescue pinned-down troops. Subsequent investigations determined that three Army officers rejected many of Swenson’s pleas and failed to notify higher commands that troops were under fire. Swenson didn’t hold back when interviewed by military investigators. According to stories by McClatchy Newspapers and the Military Times, he blasted the U.S. commanders in Afghanistan for their rules of engagement, charging that they put political reasons of trying to minimize civilian casualties ahead of U.S. concerns. According to documents reviewed by the Military Times, Swenson asked why he was “being second-guessed by [higher-ups] or somebody thats sitting in an air-conditioned” tactical operations center. “Why [the] hell am I even out there in the first place?” he said. “Let’s sit back and play Nintendo.” “I’m not a politician. I’m just the guy on the ground asking for that ammunition to be dropped because it is going to save lives,” he said, according to a transcript obtained by McClatchy Newspapers. See: mcclatchydc/2012/08/06/160432/questions-surround-army-captains.html _____________________ The Obama Administration’s rules of engagement have put American troops in an impossible situation: even if intelligence tells them otherwise, they cannot shoot until hostile intent is shown first. This has left our troops as Taliban target fodder in Afghanistan. Over 73% of the death of troops have occurred during the Obama Administration. This is largely due to the rules of engagement that our troops face in a hostile theatre. Under the ROE from the Obama administration, soldiers are required to hold fire until there is evidence of hostile action or hostile intent. At issue is, what is evidence of hostile intent? Are our troops suppose to hold a trial before they open fire on the enemy? Another recent change to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) is titled Afghan in the Lead, implemented on July 1, 2012. The policy states that Afghanistan troops are supposed to lead American troops if they want to take the lead. However, the Afghan in the Lead policy leaves American troops vulnerable to Afghan “switch hitters” who might be loyal to the regime one day and loyal to the Taliban the next. This leaves American troops as vulnerable targets. It also means that the safety of our troops is at the mercy of the reliability of Afghanistan troops. With Extortion 17, Obamas rules of engagement play a starring role: * Why wasnt there pre-assault fire? * Why wasnt there return fire after the Chinook was shot down? * Why are the Afghan Security Forces involved in all military missions? * Why werent the two Afghans who were spotted on a roof top 2AM in the dark, allegedly hanging crops during a three hour fire fight not taken out before Extortion 17 made an attempt to land nearby?
Posted on: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:16:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015