Thursday, April 20, 2017

More Details Emerge On How Rules Of Engagement May Have Been Responsible For The Death Of 38 Soldiers In The 2011 Downing Of A Chinook Helicopter Gunship In Afghanistan

Sara Carter, CIRCA: A retired Air Force captain says Pentagon covered up real cause of deadly chopper crash

A decorated retired Air Force officer who witnessed one of the most deadly attacks on Navy SEALs in U.S. history is breaking her silence, saying the government covered up evidence detailing that the 2011 downing of a Chinook helicopter gunship that killed 38 fighters in Afghanistan could have been prevented had it not been for restrictions to the military's rules of engagement that were changed under the Obama administration.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Obama administration and many of the generals who were responsible for these rules of engagement are now gone. Expect more whistle-blowers stepping forward.


Anonymous said...

The problem with the (current) rules of engagement, and the way the US, and the rest of the democratic West conducts wars is that while it appears to be the human and morale thing to do, we are experimenting with warfare and might actually delay outcomes and thereby increase casualties on both sides (including civilian casualties). This discussion needs to be had. We need to understand if the Rules of Engagement actually cause more deaths. If you are in a war, there will be people dying.
On the other extreme, we have the Russian approach ("Russia never starts wars, but it ends wars"). While I am absolutely against the reckless bombing of civilians, I understand the efficiency in it. We will never be like Russia, I hope, but we need to see what can be done to improve current Rules of Engagement to protect our soldiers, and to also shorten any military engagements, and thereby reduce the drain on our economies and reduce the likelihood that our "weakness" (as seen by the enemy) is not exploited. Of course, easier said than done, particularly in urban warfare and with enemies that hide behind / among civilians (and are sometimes civilians, say during the winter, and as soon as it's spring they go back to fighting)..

Anonymous said...

And, if we decide to more or less stick to current Rules of Engagements (with perhaps some practical, minor modifications), then we need to explain better to the world why we fight differently, and use it as a means of PR for ourselves. Because we are spending billions more and loosing more lives to do the right thing, and we should be talking more about it, and contrast it more clearly to a Russian approach. But the likes of CNN/Fox/BBC etc just talk so superficially these days and critique everything the military/commanders/white house do, and never praise their very considerate approaches. But for this to happen, the military needs to understand information warfare better and engage in it. At home and abroad.

Jay Farquharson said...

“Ridiculous rules of engagement that basically state that you can't shoot until being shot upon. A weapon has to be pointed, and essentially fired at you, in order for you to shoot and you have the proper clearance so that you don't, you know, go to jail, that you're charged with a war crime,” said Marquez, who had reached out to Congress, and some of the victims' families."