A tragic reminder of war’s ultimate reality
“A Bibb County sheriff’s deputy serving in the Georgia Army National Guard has been killed in Afghanistan.
Staff Sgt. Alex French, 31, of Milledgeville, was a member of the National Guard’s 48th Brigade, which deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year.
Sgt. Alex French (Department of Defense photo)
French was killed Sept. 30 in Kwhost, Afghanistan, when enemy forces attacked his unit using an improvised-explosive device, the Department of Defense said. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, out of Lawrenceville.
French had been with the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office for several years, according to the Macon Telegraph.
French was the eighth member of the 48th Brigade to be killed in Afghanistan.”
That’s a pretty high casualty rate, eight members of a Guard unit. Georgia’s brigade must be in a tough spot. The Macon paper reports that French was one of 18 soldiers who took part in NASCAR’s “Thank a Hero” program at the March 18 race at Atlanta Motor Speedway, so if you attended the race, you may have seen him.
According to the Georgia National Guard, French also deployed to Iraq with the 48th in 2005-06. He leaves behind a wife, Shanoca, and three children: Shaniya, Alex and Madison.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
246 comments Add your comment
N.J.
October 1st, 2009
4:33 pm
People die in wars. That’s why its best to have a really good reason to have one. Nation building or Coercive Democracy just is not good enough reason.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
4:36 pm
May the Great Spitit, bless him and ease his family’s pain.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
4:37 pm
That;s Spirit.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
4:37 pm
“That’s a pretty high casualty rate, eight members of a Guard unit. Georgia’s brigade.”
Why?
mike? AmVet? Normal? Dusty? @@? Debbie? Any opinions?
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
4:39 pm
Normal: Thanks. I let my politics get in the way.
Hef
October 1st, 2009
4:40 pm
Thank You for your service Staff Sgt Alex French my prayers are with you and your loved ones. Rest in Peace.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
4:47 pm
War’s ultimate reality is not half halfheartedly committing troops to the battle field.
We should be there to win.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
4:48 pm
May his family find some peace.
@@
October 1st, 2009
4:58 pm
With all the high-tech defensive technology at our disposal, you’d think they could come up with something that would detect IEDs before it’s too late.
Sgt. French is not the first nor will he be the last brave soul to die in combat.
My heart goes up and it carries with it, Sgt. French.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
5:04 pm
It’s time we all start telling the President and Congress that this has to stop. Bring our troops home now.
Pogo
October 1st, 2009
5:07 pm
Nothing anyone can say about something like this will make it better. Afghanistan is a septic tank. The ROE’s that have been imposed this year by the Obama adminstration regarding “civilian” engagement basically have made our soliders sitting ducks for IED’s and snipers. The soldiers can be hit but cannot necessarily defend themselves because of the ROE’s. And, the American casualty count has gone up since this decision was made. That is why I now believe we should pull them all out immediately. You cannot tie a soldiers hands and expect them to compete with an enemy like the Iranian backed Taliban that is willing to use women, children and old people as explosives mules and as human shields. They are actually using these civilians for planting the IED’s like the one that killed Sgt. French. This is a sad state of affairs for both our soldiers and their civilians. Either fight to win and provide the resources and rules to do it or get out. There is no in-between and Americans know this better than anyone (after Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).
Jay, I also wonder who the other seven Georgians were that were killed or did you put their pictures up and I just missed it?
@@
October 1st, 2009
5:08 pm
I offer no speculation as to whether or not this is a sign of things to come.
The top US military commander in Iraq has said that the withdrawal of US forces is going faster than expected – freeing up resources for Afghanistan.
Gen Odierno said that military equipment no longer required in Iraq was being freed up to be sent to Afghanistan.
“I worked very closely with Gen Petraeus to identify any capabilities that we no longer need that can be used in Afghanistan,” he said.
If it’s any comfort, things are looking great for “The Nation” of Iraq. Those brave men and women have done a tremendous job of holding it together.
Paul:
I left a post for you downstairs.
pat
October 1st, 2009
5:10 pm
War sucks no doubt. There is little good about it, but the reality is that these people attacked us, several times and vowed to atttack us again. The Afghan theater is an important one and it is high time the President takes it seriously. We need to bring this conflict to an end in such a way that we will not have to return. If we leave now, the taliban will return to power and al qaeda will fully operate with in it’s borders. We will be attacked again, they have vowed to do so, so it’s best they never get the chance. We have piddled around enough, we need to escalate and win decisively and totally. That is the only option.
michael
October 1st, 2009
5:11 pm
I am a freelance journalist who spent 3 weeks with the Georgia Army Guard’s 48th Brigade in Afghanistan in August. This is the 8th casualty for the group of 2,400 which deployed mostly in April and May. The troops are from 27 armories scattered throughout the state. The Georgia soldiers fall under Task Force Phoenix IX, which is headed up by Georgia Guard Brigadier General Larry Dudney, Jr. Their mission is to train Afghan National Police (ANP) and Afhgan National Army (ANA), serving as mentors. Roadside bombs like the one that killed SGT French are a constant danger for all NATO forces throughout Afghanistan. I should note that, during my 3 weeks in country, I personally encountered soldiers from 20 different allied nations.
Paul
October 1st, 2009
5:11 pm
@@
Thanks. And I, one for you.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
5:14 pm
Our Government and our Military leaders are just throwing lives away. I had friends at the Panama airport, I had friends at the Grenada Governors house. I lost an entire boat crew except for me in a sudden explosive ambush. These heroes of these undeclared wars from Viet Nam until now have a special place in Valhalla, but I hope to the Creator that they haunt the dreams of the people that sent them there. I want to be the boat captain when those people cross the river Styx. Will we ever stop sending our young men and women to die like this? No supplies, no equipment, no plan. PRESIDENT OBAMA, G-DDAMMIT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!! I’m going to get drunk now…
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:20 pm
SSG Nix, SALUTE!!!!!
Peace be with this fallen warrior.
It is time to rethink the Afghanistan policy. There is no “win” and we do not honor those that have paid the ultimate price.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
5:21 pm
Normal–someone posted two floors down on DADT that I should be in a good mood tonight. I’m not. I look at my first post, before you reminded me to think first of Mr. French’s family and his soul. I let my politics override that. I am really no better than the Fierce Advocates who allow political concerns to override the human cost of their actions. I second you with FIERCE ADVOCATE, QUIT THE HORSESH*T LYING HYPOCRACY,
Eric
October 1st, 2009
5:22 pm
What are we at “war” over? I’ve long forgotten . . . such a tragic and senseless loss–my heart goes to out this man’s family!
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:23 pm
My apologies to SSG French.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
5:26 pm
Jackie–thank you for the correction. I thought that’s what you meant to say and I second you…
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:27 pm
@pat
Are we trying to defeat The Taliban or al Qaeda?
What strategy would you employ to make the win a reality?
How many soldiers would you deploy?
What is an acceptable casualty rate?
@@
October 1st, 2009
5:27 pm
Normal:
While I respect your opinion, I’ve gotta say there are thousands over there who feel differently. Case in point – my husband has a cousin whose son (career Marine) is over in Afghanistan right now training Afghani military personnel. His father has just found out he is in the late stages of lung cancer. When his son asked if he should come home his Dad told him “Absolutely not! You’ve got a job to do and I know how committed you are to it. I’ll hang tough, son. Don’t forget, I’ve walked in your shoes on a different ground.”
Sheesh! I didn’t really wanna share that.
Now I need a tissue.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
5:28 pm
Enter your comments here–
Since Obama has set the rules of engagement so that Sgt French’s only choices were to die or run we need to get the hell out of there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jo nix,
I took that comment about your being happy tonight about that earlier topic as sarcasm.
@@
October 1st, 2009
5:33 pm
Can somebody enlighten me on these rules of engagement everyone’s talking about?
I’m in the dark on this.
Please be specific.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
5:34 pm
RW
“I took that comment about your being happy tonight about that earlier topic as sarcasm.”
I wasn’t sure how to take it, but I settled on sarcasm, too.
Public Option's Doing Swell
October 1st, 2009
5:36 pm
Two US Presidents, sharing the same exact personnel, including McChrystal who was the quarterback of the Pat Tillman Lyingpalooza and using lies about Pat Tillman to promote Bush’s election campaign aren’t going to learn from history.
The US is poised to get exponentially more deaths in Afghanistan from IEDs with next to nothing to show for them just as we have next to nothing to show in Iraq.
McCrystal lied for years and denied friendly weapons spray killed Tillman after an idiotic order splitting of his unit after a truck breakdown.
McChrystal’s Pat Tillman Connection
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2
History: Adding 40,000 troops to the 64,000 that will soon be in Afghanistan and the 130,000 contractors is going to yield nothing but exponentially more American deaths. The US is going to repeat the Russian nightmare tha yielded 60,000 body bags over 10 years from 1979-1989.
WhoCares
October 1st, 2009
5:36 pm
Send Jimmy Carter over there. Maybe they’ll blow his @$$ up
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
5:36 pm
I salute you Sgt. French, and apologize for the politicians that placed you in harm’s way. Will we ever learn?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:37 pm
@RW-(the original)
As you understand, what are the rules of engagement for our forces in Afghanistan?
How does make a choice about an IED?
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
5:38 pm
Public Option’s Doing Swell
October 1st, 2009
5:36 pm
It won’t be exponential, but the deaths will continue and would rise if more targets were deployed.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
5:41 pm
McWhirley (Yes, Jaggie, I spelled it wrong) should tell Obozo that there is much community organization and voter registration to be done in Afghanistan so that maybe he’ll take some interest.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
5:42 pm
Enter your comments here–
@@,
Basically it’s no firing of weapons in the presence of civilians. If the enemy is firing where civilians are present there will be no air support and we are supposed to retreat. Of course the retreat lines may well have just had IED’s set up.
Paul
October 1st, 2009
5:44 pm
Jackie
ROE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/asia/22airstrikes.html
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:45 pm
@@@
The military rules of engagement are how our troops will fight the “enemy.”
The President does not set those rules, the professional military sets those rules based upon military doctrine, law and regulations.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
5:46 pm
Like nobody was dying there before Obama took office. The strategy was changed to try to make progress instead of spinning wheels. At least he has the ability to see it isn’t working and has it under review…again.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:47 pm
@Paul
SSG is Army, not Air Force.
What does the Air Force rules of engagement got to do with him and his mission?
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
5:47 pm
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
5:41 pm
That’s already being done, and I’m sure he’s aware of it.
pat
October 1st, 2009
5:48 pm
Fair enough Jackie I will answer:
Are we trying to defeat The Taliban or al Qaeda? Yes, or in other words both. The Taliban harbored and supported al qaeda in it’s activities. That not only makes them culpable, but also a threat. We gave the taliban a way out. All they had to do is turn over bin laden and both would have survived, unscathed, they refused.
What strategy would you employ to make the win a reality? It would be multifaceted. I would be backing away from counter insurgent elements as helping one terrorist to defeat another doesn’t make much sense. I would attack them where they are, be they in Pakistan or Afghanistan. I would gather as much intelligence as possible to reduce and prevent civilian casualties, but I would hit them with tremendous force which would inevitably cause some. Make no mistake, it’s going to take dominant force and these people use it’s citizens as shields. It is a sad reality we have to deal with.
At the moment , though, I think it’s time to drop back and punt. I would give warnings all over the country and revert back to a massive air campaign to soften things up. especially in the mountains. These are my armchair-general thoughts. Ultimately, the generals in the field know much more than I or anybody. They should be listened to and the strategy corrected and implemented today, not later. I think Gen. Stanley McChrystal should get the tools he needs to win.
How many soldiers would you deploy? As many as necessary.
What is an acceptable casualty rate? Zero, but that’s just not going to happen. War is awful. One thing is certain; allowing the war to drag on endlessly will result in more casualties over all than if a strategy for decisive and quick victory. If we are putting soldiers in harms way it must be with a plan to get them out of there as quickly as possible. If we are planning on filibustering and playing politics with their lives, it’s best not to send them.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
5:49 pm
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:47 pm
Unless it’s changed we had SSGts in the USAF when I served.
@@
October 1st, 2009
5:49 pm
Thanks, RW. I was just reading about a Taliban ambush over at Flopping Aces. No air cover.
Geeeezzz. Four Americans died.
Jackie:
Then why did they change when CiCs change? This isn’t right. This is political meddling in military conflict. If it was Obama’s ass over there he’d be calling it different.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:51 pm
@RW-(the original)
You interpretation of military actions are nowhere near correct.
If you are in a firefight, your responsibility is to protect yourself and your fellow soldiers. You try to minimize civilian casualties, as best you can. You do not attack civilians and try to direct fire away from those civilians, but, you do not make yourself a target if those that are attacking you are interspersed with the combatants.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
5:54 pm
Enter your comments here–
Jackie,
Not to be too curt here, but you’re nuts.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:55 pm
@TnGelding
SSG is common between the two branches, but, SSG French is Army.
@@@
Ambush is the tactic that is used by insurgents. They can not stand and fight the might of the USA.
The change was implemented by the professional military because tactics used in one place may not be effective and the combatants try to learn what to expect so they change their tactics.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:58 pm
@RW-(the original)
Not to be curt, but you just do not have a clue, therefore you make these inane assertions that you see on TV.
I can speak from experience, Viet Nam 1968-69, 1st Cav Div, Bronze Star.
Now, what do you have to support you statement about my being “nuts?” I thought so, keyboard warrior.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
6:00 pm
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
5:55 pm
Didn’t McChrystal change the ROE and Obama approve them? Or was it vice versa? The Pentagon underestimated and disrespected al Qaeda and the Taliban and apparently still does. When they can’t protect themselves, how are they going to protect the citizens?
@@
October 1st, 2009
6:01 pm
Jackie:
They won’t be learning any new tactics if they’re dead now, will they?
Karzai complains about the airstrikes? Hasn’t this administration determined him to be corrupt? Why should we listen to a corrupt Karzai?
Pogo
October 1st, 2009
6:03 pm
The ROE’s imposed by Obama on McChrystal make it much more difficult for our soldiers to call for air support, artillery support or to engage the enemy if there is a chance that there may be “civilians” present or involved at the location where the problem is occurring. In a country like Afghanistan, the Taliban look just like the civilians (they don’t wear uniforms) so Obama’s ROE’s make it much easier for them to go about the business of killing Americans. The Taliban simply surrounds themselves with civilians or they use civilians to plant the IED’s and they continue to kill us using our own weak rules against us. This is an old, old tactic which is used by fanatics such as the Taliban against conventional soldiers such as ours. The Obama administration is not the administration to be deployed soldier.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
6:04 pm
Enter your comments here–
Jackie,
What about your service makes it mutually exclusive with your being nuts?
Paul
October 1st, 2009
6:07 pm
Jackie 5:45
[[The President does not set those rules, the professional military sets those rules based upon military doctrine, law and regulations.]]
As the commander in chief, the president can change those rules at will. But they generally defer to the military.
Your 5:47
[[SSG is Army, not Air Force.
What does the Air Force rules of engagement got to do with him and his mission?]]
The mission of the Army, AF, Navy, Marines is to train, organize and equip for war. The heads of the Army, Navy AF, Marines (the chiefs of staff) do not fight wars. They offer advice to the president. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff is the senior military advisor to the president.
When it come to warfighting, the world is divided into zones called ‘Unified Commands.’ They’re headed by a general of any service. When the AF sends a member to Afghanistan, he (or she) no longer has a chain of command through AF channels. They are assigned to the unified command of Central Command, headed by (Army) General Petraeus. General McChrystal is responsible for operations in Afghanistan. They are the people who set the rules of engagement.
So the AF people in Afghanistan have the same rules of engagement as any Army, Marine or Navy servicemember in Afghanistan.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:09 pm
@TnGelding
Gen. McChrystal was brought in to change tactics not ROE.
The Pentagon wanted to put a greater emphasis on dealing with the people instead of military confrontation.
We have to remember The Taliban was our ally in their war against the Soviet Union. They want to get rid of the drugs and are religious extremists.
@@@
What will you do, kill everyone in sight?
Karzai complains about the airstrikes because they are usually aimed at those in the Pashtun area, of which he is a member. Secondly, if you remember, Karzai is an employee of UnoCal and our original intent was to secure the path for the oil pipelines.
So, should we pull out and let them have their way with their own country, or, should we try to continue our fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan?
We are between the proverbial rock and hard place!
Paul
October 1st, 2009
6:10 pm
TNGelding
The ROE change was initiated by General McChrystal. Not by President Obama.
(aside: I know, I know…. it’s quite a change in concept after 8 years of every minor decision, logistics SNAFU or whatever being blamed on Bush…. but at least now we’re getting back to reality. Which means it does not all get blamed on the President).
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:11 pm
@Paul
You make duplicitous statements to prove your point.
In that way, you can never be wrong because you have taken both sides of the argument.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:12 pm
@RW-(the original)
I am nuts when I try to rationalize with an idiot!
Paul
October 1st, 2009
6:16 pm
Jackie 6:11
Can you elaborate? How does one prove a point with duplicitous statements?
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
6:16 pm
Pogo wins the tactics battle over Commander Jaggie.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:17 pm
PAUL
“(aside: I know, I know…. it’s quite a change in concept after 8 years of every minor decision, logistics SNAFU or whatever being blamed on Bush…. but at least now we’re getting back to reality. Which means it does not all get blamed on the President).”
Interesting point you make there, but, SSH–Fierce Advocate–no flaws! Bush–responsible for every sin known to mankind…! Didn’t you get the memo?
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
6:17 pm
Enter your comments here–
Paul,
When the military command sees the administration threatening to prosecute people for following orders that at the time had written legal cover I think the administration has just set new rules of engagement by fiat.
How insane is it that the insurgents can just plant guns in several houses and run from house to house shooting at our troops from each one but we can’t shoot at them because we never saw them actually carrying a gun?
@@
October 1st, 2009
6:18 pm
Jackie:
UnoCal? O.K., I’m done….you’re one of those war for oil conspiracy folks.
“““““““““““““
I was reading where Gates insists that compensation be paid to the Afghan families who lose members to collateral damage. Not only that but apologies are issued immediately prior to an investigation even.
The Arab culture?
“I told her I refuse to receive any amount,” the auto parts dealer said. “My father is a tribal sheik, and we’re not used to taking any amount unless the concerned will come and confess and apologize. Then we will talk about compensation.”
Kinda tacky but HECK, we’re meeting the customary requirement. They set the rules. We’re following ‘em.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:19 pm
@Paul
Read your 6:07 post.
@I Report
Its good that you have an opinion. Still haven’t figure out whether to scratch your watch or wind your hip, have we?
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:19 pm
Jackie…L-rd, Chile, who put the thumbtacks in your corn flakes?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:20 pm
@@@
I am not a conspirator, I am just stating facts.
Google information concerning Karzai.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:22 pm
@josef nix
Dont’t eat corn flakes.
Jay
October 1st, 2009
6:24 pm
Pogo, what besides your own wishful thinking leads you to conclude that Obama imposed these ROE on McChrystal? The general made it very clear in his “60 Minutes” interview that they are his ROE, imposed based on what he found upon arriving in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, those rules are entirely consistent with FM 3-24, the counterinsurgency manual drafted under the direct supervision of Gen. Petraeus while at Fort Leavenworth, the Army’s doctrine-writing center.
So again, what makes you conclude that they were imposed by Obama? Anything at all?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:24 pm
@RW-(the original)
“When the military command sees the administration threatening to prosecute people for following orders that at the time had written legal cover I think the administration has just set new rules of engagement by fiat.
The UCMJ refutes everything you just made up.
jt
October 1st, 2009
6:25 pm
In January of 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad and the useless slaughter of FORTY THOUSAND women and children, there remained behind in the city limits over 300,000 frozen german corpes.
Russian children used some of these corpes for sleds.
As bad as this seems, this battle was over in one year. Hell, the entire war over in four.
The political correct crap in Afgan is going on 9.
Either fight it correctly or get our kids home!
Curious Observer
October 1st, 2009
6:25 pm
Yes, McCrystal changed the rules of engagement under the delusion that somehow the civilian population will take the side of the corrupt government if we just minimize civilian casualties. In doing so, he deliberately hog-tied our troops. They can’t have air cover if there’s any risk whatsoever that a civilian may be harmed. They can’t really fight back if there’s a risk that civilians may be harmed.
The rest of the suggestions for using overwhelming force to win the war is so much malarkey. We saw how that strategy worked in Vietnam, where we eventually deployed half a million troops. The Taliban isn’t a traditional military force, nor is al Queda. There aren’t enough troops in the entire U.S. and Afghan military to station a force in every podunk town in that country. The enemy is a hit-and-run force, and if worse comes to worst, it can retreat across the Pakistan border, where our troops aren’t allowed to go. The civilian population knows that it will pay a price for cooperating with U.S. and Afghan forces. The Taliban will always return to exact revenge.
This war is unwinnable, and we have no business propping up a corrupt government that doesn’t have support of the population. Get our ground forces out of there now and let the Karzai government get what’s coming to it. If you think Karzai is a jolly, avuncular fellow, you are incredibly naive. He doesn’t give a flip about our troops except as a means to keep himself in power. Use air surveillance, piloted aircraft, and drones to attack the enemy at the Pakistan border. We need to protect Pakistan and keep its nuclear weapons out of the hands of unfriendly elements. Afghanistan will always be worthless as a strategic objective.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
6:25 pm
Everything you people are discussing is true, but it’s the R.O.E.s, people. It’s like putting a man in a ring with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded and then tell that man he has to touch his opponent first before he can hit him. To the other guy, they say do what you want. We fought like that in Nam and everywhere else and we fight like that in Afghanistan and it’s WRONG! Either take the gloves off and civilian casualties be damned or come home. Losing your life in an unfair fight is not heroic. It’s idiotic. IEDs have no feelings, they do not move and they are natural killers. You can’t fight them if you don’t have the “stuff” to fight them with. The Taliban cowards will continue to use human shields as long as they think they will work. I honestly believe we will save more civilian lives by accepting the collateral damage in the short term because the Taliban will abandon the practice if they see it is ineffective. As for them coming over here, well, that may be, but if we bring our people home and accept the fact that our open borders are a liability and our free spirit life is done for a while, we can successfully close our borders and make us safe from within. Use our soldiers at home to keep us safe. Think about that. One thing for sure, our supply lines would be a lot shorter. F–k Afghanistan.
@@
October 1st, 2009
6:26 pm
Jackie:
Don’t need to google. Obama has deemed him corrupt. On this, I’ll take him at his word. Just don’t know why he should worry about what Karzai thinks.
We need to come up with something that will detect IEDs. I just can’t accept that we’re incapable of doing that.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
6:28 pm
Enter your comments here–
I think I’ll submit this to Webster’s.
Nut–ex. someone that says they’re only stating facts because you can find what they say using google.
Paul
October 1st, 2009
6:30 pm
josef nix
[[Didn’t you get the memo?]]
Yeah, I did. But I have a learning disability.
RW-(the original)
Interesting point about the CIA prosecutions having ramifications for the military.
I was not aware of the ROE that said they must be observed carrying a gun to shoot. I think we need to give the folks in the field a bit more credit for their judgment. My guess is most would err on the side of not making a mistaken kill.
Jackie
I did. My 6:07 has two parts.
You stated [[The military rules of engagement are how our troops will fight the “enemy.” The President does not set those rules, the professional military sets those rules based upon military doctrine, law and regulations.]]
I said the President is the head of the military. As such, he has great latitude in directing military operations. He can set rule, override rules, but in general defers to the military.
What is incorrect or duplicitous in that?
The second part of the post was in response to your question about why the “AF” is subject to “Army” rules of engagement. I pointed out that when they arrive in Afghanistan, they fall under command of a unified commander and put away their AF or Army rules from peacetime.
What is inaccurate or duplicitous about that?
Normal
October 1st, 2009
6:30 pm
@@ IED’s can be hidden in anything or buried, but you are right, we have the technology to locate them. The problem is we don’t have it over there in sufficient numbers to do any good.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
6:30 pm
Pogo- I read 6:24 as confirming our believe that Obozo couldn’t care less.
El Jefe
October 1st, 2009
6:31 pm
In her speech in Copenhagen today, First Lady Michelle Obama said her trip to Denmark, along with the travel of her “dear friend” and “chit-chat buddy” Oprah Winfrey, as well as tomorrow’s visit by President Obama, is a “sacrifice” on behalf of the children of Chicago and the United States. “As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,” the first lady told a crowd of people involved in the Chicago project, “so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.”
I guess sacrifice is in the eye of the beholder – God’s blessing and grace on you, Sgt. Alex French
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:31 pm
62 comments and already we’ve descended as usual into the nightly sojourn on the fifth circle of Dante’s Inferno. We don’t really give much of a sh*t about SSGT French or why so many Georgians among the dead, now do we? Only pat has the presence of mind to acknowledge that he’s an armchair-general. You’re an idiot! You’re stupid. You’re ugly and yo mama dresses you funny. I’m sure that Shanoca, Shaniya, Alex and Madison are feeling much better.
TW
October 1st, 2009
6:32 pm
Maybe we should think about stuff like this beforehand next time?
Now, watch this drive…
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
6:32 pm
Enter your comments here–
Jackie,
Care to tell us how hard it is for the CiC to change the UCMJ?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:33 pm
@@@
Karzai has and continues to be corrupt. If you remember, he was the darling of the Bush Administration and Congress because he was thought to bright stability to the country, giving us a buffer and a force to counter al Qaeda. Unfortunately, we sometimes “select” those that an interest that is contrary to ours.
With the IED’s, they are static devices. They are usually 155mm howitzer shells buried in a hillside. They are detonated with anything from a cell-phone to a high frequency detection device being employed to detect them.
There is no win with these vicious weapons.
Scooter
October 1st, 2009
6:35 pm
Dang Normal, I don’t know how long that great post took you but it was a good one. Well said sir!
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:37 pm
@RW-(the original)
The Commander in Chief CAN NOT change the Universal Code of Military Justice. He is the administrative head with follows military history and protocol. It takes years to change military regulations. It is nothing he can “make a phone call” to implement.
Jay
October 1st, 2009
6:37 pm
Geez, to listen to you all tough-talkers, the four-stars running the US Army such as Petraeus and McChrystal are all a bunch of pansies afraid to kill people and eager to get their own people shot up for no good reason.
Is that really what you think? That you’re tougher and more willing to do the hard fighting than people like McChrystal, a career airborne ranger?
It’s baloney. They’ve learned the hard way that the only chance we have is to get the locals on our side, and the only way to do that is to protect their lives and those of their families. The generals are almost unanimous that we cannot kill our way to victory over there, and they have said that over and over again for years now.
But you guys just think it’s so damn simple: Kill and then kill some more. It gratifies your GI Joe complex, and that’s all that seems to matter to you.
@@
October 1st, 2009
6:37 pm
Well this seems simple enough to me. What’s the hold up?
If the Afghan population sees one coming, they’ll know to get the hell out of the way.
RW-(the original)
October 1st, 2009
6:37 pm
Enter your comments here–
I’m sure that Shanoca, Shaniya, Alex and Madison are feeling much better.
josef nix,
Great point and my apologies to the French family. Perhaps Jay B can toss us an open thread, but barring that I’ll say God bless Sgt. French and sit the rest of this one out.
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:38 pm
El Jefe–
“I guess sacrifice is in the eye of the beholder.”
Is kind of ridiculous, isn’t it? Sacrifice? Oy! Has this prestige university “scholar” ever seen a dictionary?
Jay
October 1st, 2009
6:39 pm
In this case, the UCMJ has no effect on the ROE.
AmVet
October 1st, 2009
6:40 pm
The Bronze Star Medal is a United States Armed Forces individual military decoration that may be awarded for bravery, acts of merit, or meritorious service. When awarded for bravery, it is the fourth-highest combat award of the U.S. Armed Forces and the ninth highest military award (including both combat and non-combat awards) in the order of precedence of U.S. military decorations.
Jackie, you are a man amongst boys here.
And I honor you and the respect you deserve…
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:41 pm
Hey,Jaybird, want to release my 6:38? I was just about to post a favorable comment on you, but I’ll wait it out!
md
October 1st, 2009
6:42 pm
“So again, what makes you conclude that they were imposed by Obama? Anything at all?”
Doesn’t matter who imposed them, the CIC is ultimately responsible. He can overule if he deems necessary. By allowing the ROE’s, he is complicit. Comes with the job as “the man”.
El Jefe
October 1st, 2009
6:43 pm
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/30/0930york_edit.html
Seems the Afghans are upset at the strict rules of engagement also.
According to a detailed account in The Washington Post, local Afghan leaders told McChrystal to stop being so fussy and to go ahead and kill the enemy, which they said would help bring stability to the region.
I wonder if Obama ever picked up that 3am call?
Here is the answer
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/09/29/#005370
josef nix
October 1st, 2009
6:45 pm
JAY–got that one, quick! You on the job here! What I was going to say was how much I agree with what you said at 6:37.
RW–DON’T sit it out…what you have to say around these parts has value. You have a moral compass and I appreciate that whether or not others do.
AmVet
October 1st, 2009
6:47 pm
I love it. The card carrying members of the 101st Chairborne now want to micromanage Quagmire Part Deux.
But for seven years they cheered while the biggest F Up of a CiC botched damn near everything he touched in two countries.
Problems with credibility much?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:48 pm
@AmVet
SALUTE!!!
@@
October 1st, 2009
6:48 pm
No need to get all “pithy”, jay. We’re just trying to figure out how to best protect the troops, not Obama or Karzai. Obama has the Secret Service.
I can recall that point in Iraq when the citizens, no matter what brought about the deaths of Iraqis, came to realize it was the insurgents who were to blame for the carnage – not us.
In the meantime, protection for our troops should take priority.
El Jefe
October 1st, 2009
6:49 pm
josef nix,
In comparing the First Ladies “sacrifice” to that of Sgt. French, it comes across as another installment of “Depends on what the meaning of is, is.” I mean, it must be rough to have to step down to a 757 and fly to Denmark with Oprah.
jt
October 1st, 2009
6:50 pm
Jay-
Fool yourself all you want, killing people is what war is about. Anything less is not a war, therefore not worth one damn American life.
There has NEVER been ROE’s in any successful American war.
jconservative
October 1st, 2009
6:51 pm
Tough anytime you lose troops in combat. He survived a tour in Iraq but bought it in Afghanistan. Man gave his life for his country.
Thank you sir for your sacrifice.
Now, who is going to care for his family?
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
6:55 pm
@@@
I would ask that you take a look at the word “insurgent.”
What does that mean to you?; wonder what you think it means to those in that hell called war?
Many of the “insurgents” are relatives of those in the area. The truism that you hear a lot is “all crime is local” is reflective of what an “insurgent” is. Males in the ‘hood.
md
October 1st, 2009
6:55 pm
” They’ve learned the hard way that the only chance we have is to get the locals on our side”
And even better if the darned locals would stand up and defend their own country. Pull our boys back and tell them to go fight for what they believe in or live under the Taliban. Their choice.
Jay
October 1st, 2009
6:55 pm
@@, if the priority is force protection, then we ought to bring ‘em all home right away, so we can protect them very well.
On the other hand, if the priority is making progress toward stability, then we’re going to have to expose them to some risk. Petraeus made the same calculation in Iraq when he insisted on moving troops out of the safe Forward Operating Bases and into the Iraqi neighborhoods, where they were more likely to get shot but more likely to do some good. He also dramatically altered the ROE at checkpoints, etc., to make sure that Iraqi civilians wouldn’t get killed.
Did that put our troops in more danger? Yes. Did it help make progress in Iraq? Yes.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
6:57 pm
No, in fact, it is ridiculous to even say such a thing.
The terrorists kill more innocent people as a deliberate strategy in one month than we have accidentally killed in 8 years. What more do you think it will take to get these people on our side, should we suicide bomb them too?
And guess who the terrorist strategy is aimed at, the squishes in the American media who whine and moan on behalf of the enemy, at least when their president is not in office, that is.
So we’ve developed a strategy that plays right into the hands of the cut throats, they blamed the killing of civilians on us, with full cooperation from the AJC, and here we are falling for it now. So guess where the terrorists are safe to attack us from? Behind women and children? No, they would never do that, of course not. But hey, it’s just our soldiers who have to deal with it, getting strafed by targets they can’t engage.
Bush never let the ROE unnecessarily endanger our soldiers lives. He won in Iraq. Iraq prospers. Iraq is a free country. Duh.
I guess Obozo doesn’t really even care, huh?