It comes to this

[CSM]

U.S. air support troops learn to hold back

In an effort to reduce Afghan civilian casualties, U.S. air crews, when they get calls from colleagues under fire on the ground, must try to ensure they don't cause additional fatalities.
By Tony Perry

March 22, 2010 | 5:43 p.m.

Reporting from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
At the nightly "hot wash" debriefing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pilot from the Pukin' Dogs squadron was explaining how he dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Taliban target in Afghanistan -- and why.

The pilot, a Naval Academy graduate with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would face two such cross-examinations before he could get some sleep after his 12-hour mission.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-bombs23-2010mar23,0,3420650.story

So we have finally reached the point where we will risk soldier's lives rather than risk civilian casualties. IMO, that is not only a travesty, it is justification for withdrawing the US military from any combat engagement outside our borders.

[Gaffer]

Yep, if they are going to tie their hands then pull them out.

[CSM]

It isn't just this, there are other reports of soldiers being ordered NOT TO WEAR their protective gear ... too intimidating to the locals. So they leave their helmets and vests in the vehicles. All part of winning the hearts and minds.

This is pure bull crap. McCrystal might be the expert but I will bet you a nickel to a donut that he has plenty of protection when he goes out to visit the local populace ... if he even does that.

[Gaffer]

Gooooooooooood morning vietnam!

[Noir]

Its a difficult one to judge.

Bomb heavily, ensure protection for ground troops while you are bombing, but inturn risk higher civilian casualties, which will play into the hands of enemy propagandists.

Or don't bomb as heavily, reducing your troops ground protection at the time of bombing, but reduce the possible civilian casualties and thus weaken the enemies propaganda machine.

I'm glad i'm not the one making the calls.

[CSM]

Its a difficult one to judge.

Bomb heavily, ensure protection for ground troops while you are bombing, but inturn risk higher civilian casualties, which will play into the hands of enemy propagandists.

Or don't bomb as heavily, reducing your troops ground protection at the time of bombing, but reduce the possible civilian casualties and thus weaken the enemies propaganda machine.

I'm glad i'm not the one making the calls.

I understand that whole issue but my belief is that if the risk is low enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear, then the risk is low enough to deploy diplomats instead of soldiers. If it is NOT safe enough for diplomats to engage then it is NOT safe enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear.

[SassyLady]

I understand that whole issue but my belief is that if the risk is low enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear, then the risk is low enough to deploy diplomats instead of soldiers. If it is NOT safe enough for diplomats to engage then it is NOT safe enough for soldiers to remove their protective gear.

CSM - it is because the American Soldier can be diplomats, however, the spinless diplomats CANNOT be soldiers. The unfortunate part of all this is that the spineless bastards are the ones making the decisions from the safety of their office and not letting the guys on the ground make the decision as to when it is safe to set aside the intimidation.

And everyone wonders why no one is afraid of America anymore .... because we are not allowed to wear the necessary gear for our safety in order to "appease" the anxieties of our enemies. Go figure.

[Gaffer]

Maybe they can take away cops vests and guns because they are intimidating to criminals. wouldn't want anyone to be intimidated would we?

The enemy uses civilians as shields. Many of those civilians are supporters of the enemy. hamas and hezbo have been using the tactic of hiding behind children for 40 years. Their high ranking leaders always keep a dozen or so children around them. This is not a new tactic. But this administration wants to fight the war in the time worn, proven way of Vietnam. Tie the troops hands and restrict combat actions to attain maximum friendly casualties.

Bring the troops home, we will need then to take back washington.

[Abbey Marie]

This is the sad but logical extension of recent crying in the media that the world "doesn't like us". Once we started caring about that more than the state of the world and even our own safety, we were doomed.

[SassyLady]

This is the sad but logical extension of recent crying in the media that the world "doesn't like us". Once we started caring about that more than the state of the world and even our own safety, we were doomed.

Isn't this the truth!?!