Political correctness undermines the War on Terror once again:
September 13, 2006 — WASHINGTON – Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral – and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone – dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.
U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.
The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.
“We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture,” one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.
Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.
Agonizingly, Army officers could do nothing but watch the pictures being fed back from the drone as the Taliban splintered into tiny groups – too small to effectively target with the drone – and headed back to their mountainside hideouts.
What a disaster. We had leaders from the Taliban in our crosshairs, only to learn that we could do nothing. Actually, that’s not true. We could have bombed them, meaning we had the capability to blow these terrorists to Kingdom Come and back again, but we didn’t because the military implemented rules of engagement that say we can’t bomb cemeteries. Political correctness has gotten so far out of hand that we allowed some of the worst terrorist scum to ever walk the face of the earth to, literally, walk away.
What if, some day, one of these Taliban leaders is involved in another 9/11-like event? How would the American people react if it was revealed that we had the chance to kill him but didn’t because he was in a cemetery and our rules of engagement said no bombing of cemeteries? Would the American people accept that? Not a chance.
Confederate Yankee is equally ticked and offers some great commentary and analysis:
This is the single most mind-numbingly stupid “shoot/no shoot” determinations I have heard of in this entire war. This was not a situation where that was significant risk of there being collateral damage to nearby civilians. The only people present were Taliban leaders that we want dead, and those in the cemetery that were already dead.
If this story is accurate and there are no mitigating circumstances we are unaware of, then we’re looking at two levels of incompetence.
The higher level incompetence of placing cemeteries off limits in the rules of engagement was most likely the decision of senior military officers, perhaps with State Department input. Whoever made such a determination should be stripped of these duties. War is not to be fought politely, and the enemy should not be give a “timeout” from the war unless civilian lives are at risk.
On the direct tactical level, the officer directly in charge of this flight should have taken the initiative and made the determination that attacking such a concentration of Taliban leaders was more important to the success of the mission that was “going by the book.”
Update: Judge Napolitano on Fox News researched this and said that the reason the request to fire on the group of Taliban leaders was denied was not because of the Geneva Conventions or the rule of law. It was due to an agreement the US has with the government of Hamid Karzai because cemeteries and funerals have particular importance in Afghan culture.
I understand that we don’t want to alienate the Afghan population, but let’s not forget something here. The Taliban was a tyrannical, Islamofascist regime that murdered Afghanis if they violated its strict Sharia law, including for something as innocuous as educating their daughters. Even kite flying was illegal.
And now the Taliban is trying to undermine the new Afghan government in an attempt to take the country back to where it was. I have a hard time believing that taking out 190 of the Taliban’s leaders, even if it happened at a cemetery, would alienate the Afghan population that much. The Afghan people hate them as much as we do.
Doug –
We’re united against the people who attacked us. After 9/11, we ALL wanted to get bin Laden and the Taliban. It’s the President’s war in Iraq that has been divisive.
Also, people have questions about the President’s approach and his effectiveness.
The war in Iraq isn’t going well. The war in Iran isn’t going well. Bush is commander in chief, so he’s responsible. Nothing he requested to pursue the war has been denied to him by the Republican Congress.
As American, we don’t like being told by the President or by ANYONE that we can’t criticize the President or his policies. And we are DUMBFOUNDED when our criticism of the administration are mischaracterized as attacking our troops.
Can’t we disagree more civilly? And at least understand, if not agree, with each other?
I meant to refer to the war in Afghanistan, not Iran. I certainly hope we don’t get into a 3rd war…
Oops. I missed this one.
Brian said:
[snip]
Now you’re just making shit up.
ABC might have checked in with Clarke (who would have been easy to find, since he is an ABC News consultant). Clinton, Clarke said in a statement,
Sorry. Mr. Clarke has not proven himself to be a sufficiently reliable and non-partisan source in all of this.
I’m not sure on what basis you are dismissing Mr. Clarke’s credibility.
Here’s a few things that make me doubt the administrations credibility:
1. Claims that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
2. Claims that, more than a year ago, the insurgency was in it’s last throes.
3. Repeated assurances by the president that he gets a warrant before he wiretaps…which later proved to be false when his warrantless wiretapping program was revealed.
4. Assurances from the President that he wanted to get Osama dead or alive…and then dismissing his importance after six months, and finally…as elections approach, remembering again that Osama was behind 9/11.
5. Being told that Brownie was doing a heckofa job.
6. Being told that Saddam had ties to al Queda and that Iraq had WMDs
7. Mission accomplished.
8. We don’t torture.
I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired.
Publicus said:
Can’t we disagree more civilly? And at least understand, if not agree, with each other?
I certainly hope we can. But we may have reached a point where true unity on this is nearly impossible. Face it: “Death of a President” doesn’t sound like it’s going to bring this country together, does it? Imagine the response if the subject were Mr. Clinton. I would have been outraged by that, and I never voted for the guy. But he was my President–like it or not (believe me, I didn’t)–and I would NEVER want anyone to advocate assassinating our country’s leader. I’d feel a little bit better about where we were today if more folks on the left expressed similar outrage. Something tells me that ain’t gonna happen….
Publicus also said:
We’re united against the people who attacked us. After 9/11, we ALL wanted to get bin Laden and the Taliban. It’s the President’s war in Iraq that has been divisive.
Could you please explain EXACTLY how this war’s been divisive? I’m serious. Yes, the war has not gone as well as some would like, but war is messy (and Bush told us to be prepared for a long, drawn-out conflict). We Americans tend to be very impatient and our attention spans are chronically short. We won’t get a wrap on the GWOT at the top of the hour, will we?
Also, it wasn’t like Saddam was sitting there minding his own business over there in Iraq. Remember all of those UN resolutions? Seems to me that we weren’t the only nation who thought Saddam was a serious threat (don’t believe it? try reading [one of] his general’s book [Gen. Sada’s Saddam’s Secrets]).
And to follow up: now that we’re in this, what would YOU suggest we do about Iran’s nuclear threat? If this doesn’t scare the hell out of you, then maybe we don’t have anything more to say to each other!
Publicus said:
[snip]
I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired.
Looks like our posts crossed.
Please don’t think I’m blowing you off–I’m not. I’d like to respond tonight to some of your eight points above, but I’ve gotta go. (I’ve gotta get up for work in about five hours; I’m really tired.)
I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow (if someone else doesn’t do so first).
Publicus, thanks for not ranting and raving. I truly appreciate that. Later….
doug –
I’m getting tired, too! I’d like to add one last thing:
I sincerely hope that the president is right and that I am wrong—because he’s in power. But I am very worried…
My point was that the Clinton administration believed that the US response to terrorist attacks would be through law enforcement, not on a battlefield.
You’re mixing two things. The response is certainly military, i.e., blowing up Afghanistan. I don’t believe anyone, neither Clinton nor Kerry, said the response to the act is law enforcement. But after the response, what’s the next step? Now we’re talking the response to the threat. The military isn’t going to keep citizens safe at home. They aren’t the right tool for preventing a suicide bomber from walking into a shopping mall, or 20 bombers walking into 20 malls. That’s law enforcement, which includes police and the FBI, and whatever “homeland security” organizations are in place. “Law enforcement” doesn’t mean “capture the bomber and charge him with a class D felony”. It means use the people on the ground, detective work, wiretaps, undercover agents, snitches. Everything that law enforcement is good at. The military is good when you need a mallet. Law enforcement is a scalpel, or at least a small hammer.
Where would you rather confront the terrorists–
a) on a battlefield halfway around the world with the full force of the US military, or
b) here at home, who knows where?
I assume that you’re referring to the terrorists that would attack the US, so then it’s a false choice. I suppose I’d choose (a) if it prevented (b), but we’re not doing that. The Iraqis did not attack us, they did not attack Spain, London, Bali, etc. When I say “Iraqis”, I don’t mean Hussein (who, BTW, also didn’t attack us). I’m not aware that any of the terrorists who actually carried out terrorist attacks were Iraqi (though I could be wrong; hard to keep track). So claiming that we’re in Iraq to prevent further attacks at home seems to have no basis, and serves only to raise fear. There’s no evidence, nor has anyone suggested, that if we pull out the local Iraqi insurgents would pack their bags and head to Chicago. I don’t know who the “them” is that Bush is talking about when he uses the “fight them there instead of here” line.
If there was a country called Al-quedastan, I’d say bomb its sand into glass. But those we are fighting in Iraq are not the same people who we fear one day will show up in Disneyworld with an overstuffed backpack. I’d much rather have twice as many police, FBI, air marshals, national guard, etc. walking around than I would 130K soliders getting killed in a country that has little bearing on the threat we face at home.
Thanks for responding with rare (not for you, but for this site) civility.
Sorry. Mr. Clarke has not proven himself to be a sufficiently reliable and non-partisan source in all of this.
Well, you’ve given me an impossible task, then. Finding a source that you would find credible, while at the same time “non-partisan”. I suspect that any source who disagrees with your position would automatically qualify as neither.
Hi Brian:
Thanks for your response. I think you’ve made some good points. Mind if I respond to one right off the bat? OK. Here’s my attempt….
You said:
You’re mixing two things. The response is certainly military, i.e., blowing up Afghanistan. I don’t believe anyone, neither Clinton nor Kerry, said the response to the act is law enforcement. But after the response, what’s the next step? Now we’re talking the response to the threat.
I’m not sure I’m mixing these two things, but I follow what you’re saying. The GWOT is fought on (at least) two fronts: (1) militarily (being on the offensive) and (2) law enforcement (the defensive/home front/legal angles). The point I was trying to make is that it appears Clinton was far more interested in #2 than in #1. Perhaps today you could say that Bush is concerned about both–folks on the left believe #1 is going badly and many aspects of #2 are highly illegal. Is that a fair summary?
One of the differences (I think) between Clinton and Bush on terrorists is that Clinton wanted to capture them and then let the courts decide their fate. Bush would go along with that (but only if we don’t kill them first).
Where most of us on the right have a problem is this: we look at the Democratic leadership (as a whole) and believe we’re looking at people who don’t believe we’re in a war! The emphasis always seems to be on things like: negotiation, multilateralism, more negotiation, and (unfortunately) blaming America for making the terrorists mad in the first place. This makes us very, very nervous. That’s because we believe these Islamofascists will say and do anything to dupe us into thinking we’re safer than we really are.
I’ve rambled on too long again. My apologies. But before I wrap this up, I’d really like to know what you think: Does the probability of a nuclear Iran concern you? If so, what do you think we should do about that? If you think the concern is an overblown, fear-inducing exaggeration, why do you think so?
You also said:
Thanks for responding with rare (not for you, but for this site) civility.
Right back at you, big guy! 😉
Thanks for reading all of this, Brian. I hope to hear again from you soon in this thread. (Or maybe I’ll find you on another topic….)
Brian said:
Finding a source that you would find credible, while at the same time “non-partisan”. I suspect that any source who disagrees with your position would automatically qualify as neither.
OK. That was a poor way of describing Mr. Clarke. But I think we’d both have to admit that we are all somewhat guilty of this. We tend to listen to (and quote) those sources that reinforce our beliefs and biases; we distrust those that don’t.
Re: Mr. Clarke, perhaps I should have said that I’ve never been sure of his motivations in all of this, nor do I believe that he’s been entirely truthful. So I’ve taken some of what he’s asserted with a grain of salt.
I do try to listen to others’ points of view, even if I don’t agree with them. In the current political climate, though, that’s harder and harder to do. (An aside: Being a conservative in Massachusetts, I listen to the “other” point of view almost all the time. This also explains why I frequent Wizbang–Jay Tea’s rants against the Commonwealth leave me laughing and nodding my head in agreement [because I often know exactly what he’s talking about].)
Hope you don’t think I’m being evasive or that I’m engaging in linguistic gymnastics–that’s not my intention. I’m trying to respond honestly to your posts, agree when you’ve made a good point, and clarify what I’ve said when necessary.
it appears Clinton was far more interested in #2 than in #1.
So am I! The defensive front is what has the greatest chance of protecting my family. When a Saudi or Syrian is prevented from blowing up my mall, I’m not really going to be thinking of the troops we have working hard to quell an Iraqi civil war.
folks on the left believe #1 is going badly and many aspects of #2 are highly illegal. Is that a fair summary?
Not exactly. I think #2 could be done legally. The Brits foiled the alleged soft-drink bomb plot using all legal means, including warrants. In a post a while back I lamented the tendancy of the right to edit out the word “illegal” or “warrantess” whenever they report what the left says. For example, the left objects to “warrantless surveillence”, and the right reports it as objecting to “terrorist surveillence”. Etc. But I don’t want to go off on that tangent now.
we look at the Democratic leadership (as a whole) and believe we’re looking at people who don’t believe we’re in a war!
Who are we at war with? Iraq? Well, yes, through our own doing. But let’s say Iraq was settled tomorrow; the factions reached an agreement, and the violence died down. Is anyone going to think that because Iraq was a success, we’re now safe at home? Of course not. So then what? Who will we be at war with then? The elusive Al-Queda? How do we fight them over there so they can’t kill us over here? And why aren’t we focusing all of our effort on that right now?
It’s not that the left doesn’t believe we’re in a war. It’s that we believe we’re in the wrong war! Remember, the left cheered too when we attacked Afghanistan. But Iraq? Long after we leave Iraq, the true “terrorists” will still be a threat. Saudis attacked us, OBL is hiding out in Pakistan, and we invaded Iraq. WTF?
Does the probability of a nuclear Iran concern you? If so, what do you think we should do about that?
Yes it does, but so do a lot of things, such as a nuclear North Korea, a trigger-happy Israel, and a Russian nuke falling into the wrong hands.
What should we do? I don’t know. I leave that to my leaders to tell me their thoughts and explain it in a way that I agree is rational. Military action? Doesn’t seem rational at the current time. Too bad we don’t have more troops who aren’t already busy with something else. Sanctions? In retrospect, the sanctions on Hussein did indeed succeed in suspending his nuclear program, so that seems like a reasonable path to follow. But I am open to being convinced by those with more experience and knowledge than I.
I listen to the “other” point of view almost all the time.
I’m a liberal who occasionally visits Wizbang. What do you do? 🙂
Brian:
Thanks for your response. Might it be possible for us to continue this discussion via private e-mails? If so, how do we do that?
If you’d rather, I can try to get back to you on your post later in the day Friday.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m glad we’re being so civil (at least to this point! 🙂 )