It wasn't the rules of engagement for Taliban

The military had 190 Taliban leaders in it's crosshairs today, but didn't take them out. Why? It was NOT because of their 'rules of engagement' as initially reported. The true reason is because a high-ranking government official in Washington made an agreement with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai not to attack funerals or cemeteries. This information is from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News on John Gibson's Big Story.

I want to know what YOU think about this little agreement and what Condi Rice (or whoever the high-ranking individual in Washington is) should do about it. The odds of getting 190 armed Taliban all lined up like ducks in a row again, is zip.

This is the canned excuse:

Intelligence officers monitoring the footage captured by the armed, unmanned aircraft tell NBC News they were prepared to fire but were prevented from doing so by military rules of engagement that prohibit waging war in a cemetery.

Such rules are in place in an effort to minimize collateral damage, the killing of innocent civilians or destruction of sensitive targets, such as religious sites.

“During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of a cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day,” a coalition spokesperson said. “A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.” source

Not everybody agrees, or the classified picture would not have been sent to the press by some unknown person.

NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying "we were so excited" that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement. source

I bet they were really frustrated when they found out about the agreement between Washington and Karzai. So, it's time to play whack a mole politician. Leave your thoughts in a comment on the situation or what Bush should tell the official that made this stupid agreement.

Also posting:
Western Standard
Hot Air Macsmind
In the Bullpen
Old War Dogs
alphabet city
Wayne's World
USS Neverdock
Assorted Babble
The Captain's Journal
________________________________
Linked with bRight&Early, Overnight Post

Comments

[Debbie]

Mike I agree with you. I remember Iraq and we should have taken Sadr and his militi out right from the start.

[Mike Morrison]

The responsibility and blame for this rests squarely on the administration's shoulder, specifically on Pres. Bush. As chief, he sets the rules of military engagement. Remember we are not talking about laws Geneva Rights or otherwise that prevented us,, this was our OWN rule we set up as a restriction upon ourselves. You'll recall something similar happened in Baghdad when US troops were taking mortar fire from Al Sadar hiding out in a Mosque.. We didn't touch him and let him get away as we had an ROE agreement with the Iraqi Intrim Gov. not to engage around Mosques. If you are truly honest, you’d see this is directly Pres. Bush's fault and responsibility as he is the Chief. How can we fight the war when we are not even engaged? This is not an democratic, or republican issue.. if our leader regardless of party sells us out like this, he betrays us all.. we need to wake up to this fact.

[Thor]

The 190 ought to thank their imaginary moon god that the guys with the fingers on the trigger didnt do the right thing in this case.

[Douglas V. Gibbs]

They hid in the Democratic Party too, and we can't get them there either.

[RoadKnight]

You can't tell me that anyone is or should be surprised by this. The US is signatory to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit attacking cemetaries, religious institutions, schools, etc. unless fired upon from someone inside said area.

And, unfortunately, a bunch of unelected judges have decided that the Geneva Conventions apply to those who 1) are not signatory and 2) do not follow (even remotely) the Conventions.

NOTE: A non-signatory to the GC is entitled to the GC protection *if* they adhere to the conventions.

There are three different reasons at play here. Military rules of engagement, the deal with Karzai, and the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not saying that I agree with the in-action that was taken. Far from it. But even without the agreement the military's hands were tied.

Gotta love how we've managed to hamstring ourselves.

[Assorted Babble by Suzie]

P.S. For some reason your trackback ping will not work...hummm I tried twice...sorry.

[Assorted Babble by Suzie]

I watched the Big Story today...and still mad about this. My post is now updated and thank you for linking me.