‘More Firepower’ to Afghanistan

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

On firing McChrystal Obama said there would be no change in policy:

U.S. President Barack Obama says the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will remain the same despite his decision to replace the top general leading the war effort.

Al Jezera

Today, though, his ‘shiny new’ general, Petraeus, promises the US Senate that in fact there will be to changes to policy:

WASHINGTON – Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he would take a new look at the rules governing the use of heavy firepower in the Afghan war, which have cut down on United States airstrikes and civilian casualties but have been bitterly criticized by American forces who say they have made the fight more dangerous.

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

General Petraeus said he would look anew at the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

Calling the protection of his troops a “moral imperative,” General Petraeus signalled in his Senate confirmation hearing to take command in Afghanistan what could be his first significant shift in policy since President Obama last week fired the top commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

Sure, Mr Obama, why worry about more of this:

I guess McChrystal didn’t kill quite enough kids for our Senators.  

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Not enough dead civilians for the US government.  

    • Edger on June 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Afghanis are real people or anything, right General? Mr. President?

    If enough of them (epecially their kids) are burned, mutilated, maimed and killed they’ll eventually learn to love America, roll over and and surrender. And they’d never dream of knocking over any buildings in America. Either.

  2. for the very purpose of giving cover for a policy change.

    To tell you the truth, I’m not even sure Obama exists. But if he does, “He’s the most interesting man in the world.”

    Drink well, Mr. President.  

    • banger on June 30, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Why are American troops tromping around that country? Well, I have my own ideas but what are the official reasons–I don’t get it. Al-qaida? They I’ve seen estimates of 50-200 in the force–not a plausible reason and it never was a plausible reason. What story to they tell each other? The only answer I get is that they are trying to do nation building.

    No answers are demanded by the American people who are happy funding wars ad infinitum–the more the better. Meanwhile throw a few million into the streets of a country that isn’t kind to its weak, young, old and poor. I will make a guess that we will be seeing a large increase in sex work.

Comments have been disabled.