(Bumped) Interview: SEAL Marcus Luttrell, Author of 'Lone Survivor'
BUMPED - ** In light of the approaching Fourth of July holiday, please take the time to watch this 13 minute interview. You won't regret it. **Previous Jawa recommendation of this book here. Listen carefully to what he says about the restrictive rules of engagement, the politicians that come onto his battlefield and tie his and his brothers' hands in the face of the enemy (he's not talking about Republicans), the deaths of 19 of his brothers in arms as a result of being handcuffed by these restrictive rules of engagement, the abysmal media coverage/reporting and lack of general knowledge the press has about the war, and how the media told his mother that he was dead before the military did. Go ahead, libs. Call this military hero liar. I dare you. The only lies bring told are the ones you've been telling yourselves day in and day out since the war started.
Posted by: Rome at June 27, 2007 03:53 PM
that interview rules. check out http://www.pardonlibby.net
Posted by: joe at June 27, 2007 06:19 PM
Posted by: mrclark at June 27, 2007 06:21 PM
Posted by: greyrooster at June 27, 2007 07:49 PM
Posted by: JihadGene at June 28, 2007 01:09 AM
I am truly sorry for Mr. Luttrell and for his teammates that died on that mountainbecause theywere more concerned about what the fucking media would do to them than the Taliban that eventually killed them. Its a disgrace that men like these have to die because of our own vile, obnoxious media. Next time you see a reporter, kick'em in the nuts. This shit has gone too far.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 28, 2007 09:30 AM
Posted by: Rome at June 28, 2007 09:44 AM
Let the military fight the war. Politicians.... STAY OUT.
I'm gonna buy his book.
Posted by: Sparky at June 28, 2007 10:17 AM
* Gallup poll June 2007
Posted by: John Ryan at June 28, 2007 11:07 AM
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 28, 2007 11:14 AM
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 28, 2007 11:18 AM
Posted by: Howie at June 28, 2007 11:35 AM
1. "This happened 5 years ago, Jan 2002"
WRONG, It took place in July 2005
2. "Republicans were in strong control of both the Senate and the House"
WRONG, In January 2002, The 107th congress was comprised of 221 Rep. / 212 Dem. in the House, and 49 Rep. / 50 Dem. in the Senate (+ 1 Independent Siding with the Dems).
Good Lt was pointing out the support the Donks have given our troops, like trying to shut down the wiretapping of terrorists, Hairy Reed's comment about the surge being a failure before all the troops were even in Iraq, blaming Bush for Abu Ghraib, using Cindy "Ima nut" Sheehan as their unofficial mascot, the "I support the troops" cut and run campaign, etc.. I could go on for days. Bottom line is the Dems will take any and all negative events in this war to further their political cause, and the direct effect of their actions iscausing the military to be over cautious in their Rules of Engagement.
Until you get your facts right, I suggest you shutyour "cack garage".
Posted by: Barry at June 28, 2007 12:21 PM
It's a known problem when you're inserted behind enemy lines -- the same thing happened to Andy McNab's 'Bravo Two Zero' SAS team in the Gulf War when they let civilians leave unharmed that discovered their presence. They were also engaged afterwards by a heavy armed Iraqi force.
They were right to let them leave then, as was the SEAL team this time.
Posted by: davec at June 28, 2007 02:18 PM
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 28, 2007 02:40 PM
These "innocent" goat-herders were also the ones who ran right down to their local mud-hut village and informed the Taliban commander of the SEALs position. Just because they are unarmed doesn't make them"innocent".It would have been totally prudent to havekilled or at the very least detained them inorder tosave their own lives and the mission at hand. These warriors were killed by PC-ness or the fear of it from their own country, make no mistake.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 28, 2007 02:45 PM
..The four Seals zigzagged all night and through the morning until they reached a wooded slope. An Afghan man wearing a turban suddenly appeared, then a farmer and a teenage boy. Luttrell gave a PowerBar to the boy while the Seals debated whether the Afghans would live or die.
If the Seals killed the unarmed civilians, they would violate military rules of engagement; if they let them go, they risked alerting the Taliban. According to Luttrell, one Seal voted to kill them, one voted to spare them and one abstained. It was up to Luttrell.
Jack: I never said 'innocent' I said unharmed civilians. Big difference. That is a protected status. One that is not tested by the loyalty of the civilian to a particular force.
An Afghani national was one of the persons who protected Luttrell: I'm not sure its 'prudent' to go around killing them to protect missions. It is frustrating that this happens, but operators have made the same choice more than once.
Posted by: davec at June 28, 2007 03:38 PM
For those Ignorant Douchebags who don't understand.War is not a game, there are no "time outs" or "do overs". You either win or lose. All who are involved in awar, directly or indirectly, are on your side or your enemy's side. Although there are some who play both sides for personal gain, they are not your ally. It doesn't matter whether your enemy is carrying a weapon or not. They are your enemy. An unarmed person can do as much (or more) damage as an armed person can.As was proven when these "unarmed civilians" informed the enemy of the location of our military. In hindsight, these "civilians" were actually the "un-uniformed enemy".The problem is that America and it's allies are too afraid to make a decision on whether we are at war or not. They are also afraid of bad publicity. It may come as a surprise to all you ID's, but the enemy has exploited these weaknesses to their advantage. I nor anyone else has any right to comment on the decision our men made, we were not there. However, I can assure you, if they chose to silence the "unarmed civilians" the world press along with our enemies would have hung these men out to dry, regardless of the outcome. The ROE are outdated, the enemy does not adhere to them, this IS a war, different than any war we have fought. When America and it's allies decide to treat this "war on terror" seriously, we will win it, it will be over and our hero's will be home.
Posted by: Barry at June 28, 2007 04:00 PM
I can however find no fault in an ROE that protects unharmed civilians from being killed. The U.S has spent a great amount of money to make accurate weapons to try and ensure civilians are not harmed. The ROE protecting civilians is no different in this regard.
Posted by: davec at June 28, 2007 04:18 PM
Posted by: Barry at June 28, 2007 04:40 PM
I'll assume then you'll be shutting your mouth when terrorists kill civilians whilst killing our soldiers then including situations like:
"Mohammad, one of at least 34 children killed when a car bomb exploded as they gathered around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and cakes in a southern Baghdad neighborhood."
Our Soldiers willingness to protect civilians, while our enemy uses them as meatshields is one of the things that completely sets us apart from the animals we are fighting. We also treat the wounded insurgents and terrorists and promise humane treatment - any soldier caught is not given the same.
I'm sorry, I just don't share your point of view.
Posted by: davec at June 28, 2007 05:06 PM
Posted by: Barry at June 28, 2007 09:02 PM
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 28, 2007 10:48 PM
Posted by: Greyrooster at June 28, 2007 10:50 PM
If you haven't read the book, yet, get it! It is awesome!
Posted by: pivalleygirl at June 28, 2007 11:04 PM
I'm sorry you could not comprehend a very simple point; When terrorists kill Iraqi civilians while attacking U.S Soldiers no one should be outraged. It's just 'business' right?
"You're not going to kill your way out of an insurgency."
Civilian cooperation is a cornerstone to breaking the back of an insurgency. The new COIN operations focus on securing civilian areas that have been taken over by insurgents and terrorists. Gathering and exploiting HUMINT from local leaders (only possible if they trust us) and further denying an AO for terrorists.
You cannot wanton kill civilians in an insurgency, and win it.
Posted by: davec at June 29, 2007 03:52 AM
Posted by: Barry at June 29, 2007 12:30 PM
Unfortunately you continue to spin that the United States is now engaged in a conventional war -- There is no more Iraqi soldiers to kill, no more CNN grainy night vision footage of C&C structures being destroyed. The U.S forces are now involved in counter-insurgency operations.
Mao once said "Guerrillas are the fish, and the population is the sea in which they swim" which lead to a counter-insurgency tactic "draining the swamp" (the forced re-location of a civilian population) the British termed the use of the word "Concentration Camps" with this tactic during the Boar War, the U.S used it in Vietnam with the "strategic hamlet program" this was a direct response to the ability of guerrillas to exploit and gain popular support from civilians. Civilian support for the insurgency is a key problem; it allows the insurgency to move among the population, and also be re-supplied. The current counter-insurgency strategy is aimed at removing support for insurgents & terrorists, attacking and holding strongholds, rebuilding civilian infrastructure and creating relationships with tribal leaders. Once the civilian support for insurgents, and their ability to live amongst them is destroyed it forces them to either go underground, or be exposed -- civilians provide key intelligence to attack safehouses, and who was involved in the insurgency. Every insurgency where the civilian population feels unsafe; or the occupiers are more brutal than the insurgents has been lost (see:Algiers) successful COIN is 70% political and 30% force - this is why General Petraeus said you're not going to kill your way out of it.
Your reference to General Petraeus as a 'leader' really exposes your own ignorance - Petraeus was the co-author of FM 3-24 the counterinsurgency field manual, created from history of Guerrilla war from Lebanon to the Malay emergency. He is much more than the current 'point man' in the field.
It's unfortunate that your 'reality' does not recognize the problem of killing unharmed civilians as a problem in fueling an insurgency -- let alone from a humanitarian aspect. Fortunately we have people who know what they're talking about running counterinsurgency operations.
Posted by: davec at June 29, 2007 04:14 PM
Posted by: Barry at June 29, 2007 09:45 PM
Do you even know what 'conventional war' means? here's a clue straight from wikipedia:
"Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army."
So tell us how we're going to do that in Iraq, you know fight a conventional warfare with no opposing army, or defined enemy?
The current 4GW strategy is 'theoretical'? Its based on fighting principles taken from actual insurgencies, from numerous military tactics, from numerous countries, and environments.
Your scorched earth policy is ridiculous, and seems based out of movies like Rambo: let's crack out the Napalm and kill em' all!
Posted by: davec at June 29, 2007 10:27 PM
Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics.
See, I translate "primarily target" as in yes there will be colateral losses. you write...."So tell us how we're going to do that in Iraq, you know fight a conventional warfare with no opposing army, or defined enemy?"
Alas my mistake, maybe I should have been more careful with my choice of words. I use the words "conventional war" so I wouldn't be accused of advocating nukes, bios, and chems. So I will adjust to "modified conventional warfare" (aka MCW). (That way I get to define it, not you.) In my world of MCW, we would NOT give the enemy advanced notice of our intentions to attack them. It seems to me that letting the enemy fortify themselves, melt into the population, or take their weapons and retreat is a bad idea. (Sorry, but that to me is a no brainer.) How hard would it be to lure the enemy into an area then surround the area and annhilate them. It's been done, problem is, they have been doing it to us. Why do we insist on trying to takemurderers like Muqtada al-Sadr and put them in the government when we could easily havethem taken out permanently.(ThisAhole hasbeen the cause ofenough murders to warrant it.) I have no doubt that in some of the calmer areas, infrastructure is being rebuilt, people have a lot more opportunity for education, and they get a real taste of freedom that we hope will motivate them to take control of their destiny. But in the areas where the terrorists are flourishing, instead of making deals with the insurgents, we should be making life so unbearable that their only choice is to give up. Cut them off from the rest of the country, harass them with nightly bombings (ala Bosnia?), make them realize that anytime they harbor insurgents or terrorists, that we will be a lot harder on them than the insurgents or terrorists will be. We should motivate the Iraqi government to get off their asses and govern. (Myansweris to get them their very own offices in the slums of Baghdad outside the green zone, but that is just a fantasy of mine.) You can apply the same rules to Afghanistan. As for the poppy growers, now you can use your naplam. Now while we are cleaning house in these two countries, why not go after the Iranian arms smuggling. The shipments can be tracked, how hard would it be to have an accident at these factories, transfer points, owners houses, etc. Hey if the Russians can get away with assassinations, why can't we? To be honest, I feel this should have been done from the beginning. Instead, we continue to placate the terrorists instead of confronting them. You tell me that, "Once the civilian support for insurgents, and their ability to live amongst them is destroyed it forces them to either go underground, or be exposed". Do you really think that they will choose us over their brothers? I'm sorry, but from what I've seen from the expansion of Islamic extremists accross the globe, I seriously doubt they will stay the course of democracy. So what is your solution?
Posted by: Barry at June 30, 2007 03:27 AM
Do you really think that they will choose us over their brothers?
Read Micheal Yon's report from "Operation ArrowRipper" the residents in Diyala Province themselves pointed out all of the people involved in attacking and torturing them.
Your whole idea of what should be done about isolating the insurgents is exactly what is the motive behind the surge is : "take and hold" strategy. As you are aware, one of the worst mistakes in Iraq warfare was cleaning areas like Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit etc and then then following the insurgents / terrorists to their new residence. The increased forces allows the U.S forces to spread their presence into areas that have been conquered. We will no longer allow the enemy to create AO's by attacking the ISI anywhere they are found rather than letting them create fortesses like Fallujah and Baqubah again. It's a hard slog to root them out of places they have months to secure and prepare for warfare.
Muqtada al-Sadr has to much fan appeal unfortunately, due to who is father was. The time for his death would be back in 2003-2004.
We are not making deals with the ISI, we're making deals with the former Baathist's that are involved in the insurgency pushing them into reconciliation with the Government. No one involved in killing U.S Soldiers will be given this option they are all detained by the coalition.
In regards to democracy the best outcome would be a state like Jordan, Kuwait, UAE or Qatar.
Posted by: davec at July 01, 2007 01:47 AM
christian dating service
dating web site
xxl sex anal
buy sex dvd
sex for couple
free dating site
live sex show
free dating site
gay teen sex
gay oral sex
young black pussy
hot wet pussy
free naked pic
Posted by: xxx porn at July 04, 2007 03:22 AM
gay sex video
black anal sex
Posted by: Bruce Springsteen at July 08, 2007 09:52 AM
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0162 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0123 seconds, 42 records returned.
Page size 38 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.