CIVILIAN AFGHANISTANS MORE VALUABLE THEN OUR TROOPS?

Beginning during the Viet Nam war the Press and the anti-military ilk began to decry the death of indigenous peoples more than they did our own soldiers.
What was once considered the cost of winning a war, a tactic that was used in Germany and most notably in Japan. The killing of civilians to break the will of the people to continue fighting, was called "collateral damage". An unfortunate part of winning a war, but a necessary evil that was accepted in the battle plans of military leaders and the public at large.

Now it appears the lives of the people who are dressed in civilian clothes, and appear to be non-combatants are more important than the lives of the men and women our government puts in harms way!
This directive is reported in the Wall Street Journal as coming from the new general in charge of the troops in Afghanistan, but as anyone who has had any association with the military knows. The directives come from Washington, where, these days, being in a war seems to be more important, then winning a war!

The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.

The rules being crafted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal are the clearest indication yet of how the new U.S. command team in Afghanistan plans to reduce civilian fatalities, a cause of public anger against U.S. efforts there.

When did our military get off track, and start worrying about what the civilians feel about the our presence in their country. If we are trying to win the hearts and minds of those who don't like us, we should withdraw all forces from Afghanistan now. Every man, woman and child could have a rifle or bomb inside their burka , as they all hate Americans. Send the peace corps. not the military if the object is to win the hearts and minds!

U.S. officials said the rules were designed to reduce the use of bombs, missiles and other heavy weaponry in populated areas. They will require U.S. forces that come under fire from militants operating out of houses and other buildings that may contain civilians to end the engagement and leave the area, officials said.

The restrictions could force commanders to be more cautious in the mission-planning stage and eschew operations likely to require operations in populated areas, according to an officer serving in Afghanistan.

The rules make clear exceptions for situations where the lives of U.S., North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Afghan personnel are in danger, U.S. officials said. The guidelines allow U.S. personnel to call in airstrikes or use powerful weaponry if they fear being overrun, can't leave the area safely, or need to evacuate wounded colleagues.But this is a decision that men and women in harms way should not have to make!

Gen. McChrystal, who arrived in Afghanistan last week, is "trying to make it as clear as possible that risking civilian lives for the sole goal of killing the enemy is not acceptable," said his spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith.

I am sorry, but if we don't kill the enemy, they will kill us! There is no way this war cannot turn into another Viet Nam if we try to fight a "clean surgical" war. Besides the direct order to wait until the field commander in the battle determines that they are about to be "over run" will result in more casualties of our troops you can be sure. As any captain who wants to advance in rank will not want to be brought up on charges that he applied excessive force! This is no way to fight a war, but it is consistent with our current presidents attitude toward our enemies. Talk, talk, talk and they will do our bidding. Bovine excrement!!!