PDA

View Full Version : James Mattis Reveals New Plan For The Taliban




Swordsmyth
10-06-2017, 02:48 PM
Mattis told a pair of congressional hearings Tuesday night that he had been given freedom by the White House to review the rules of engagement in Afghanistan and to make changes he thought necessary to speed the fight against the Taliban.

The defense secretary has implemented at least two changes, Military Times (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/10/03/mattis-reveals-new-rules-of-engagement/) reported. The first removes the “proximity requirement,” that did not allow U.S. forces to engage the enemy unless it was within a particular distance of American troops.
“These kind of restrictions that did not allow us to employ the airpower fully have been removed, yes,” Mattis said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, “We are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces.”
“It used to be we have to basically be in contact with that enemy,” he added. “If they are in an assembly area, a training camp, we know they are an enemy and they are going to threaten the Afghan government or our people, [General John Nicholson, commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan] has the wherewithal to make that decision. Wherever we find them, anyone who is trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan government, then we can go after them."
Meanwhile, the second shift in the rules of engagement allows American advisers to be deployed with Afghan units who are closer to the enemy than before. “Those units with NATO and American advisers win, and those without them often do not win,” Mattis said. “So we are going to spread the number of units with advisers to bring that air support to win.”

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/james-mattis-reveals-plan-taliban-031510752.html

unknown
10-06-2017, 02:56 PM
Sounds like theres going to be an uptick in the bombing of wedding parties.

Raginfridus
10-06-2017, 02:58 PM
We could just hand the fight over to the Afghans and let them decide as we're leaving. That would speed up the fight, and save everyone thousands more lives and us from sinking billions more dollars in rubble and "rare earth elements".

nikcers
10-06-2017, 03:02 PM
Let me try this again because it worked last time.

inb4 neocons Deescalate conflict in the middle east and try diplomacy.

goldenequity
10-06-2017, 07:28 PM
Sounds like theres going to be an uptick in the bombing of wedding parties.

your keyboard went where my mind immediately headed.

phill4paul
10-06-2017, 07:39 PM
It was a winning strategy in Vietnam.

Origanalist
10-06-2017, 09:53 PM
It was a winning strategy in Vietnam.

And Vietnam isn't the graveyard of empires.

phill4paul
10-06-2017, 10:05 PM
And Vietnam isn't the graveyard of empires.

Well, it kinda was. ;) But, point taken,

Origanalist
10-06-2017, 10:10 PM
Well, it kinda was. ;) But, point taken,

I know what you're saying, and that occured to me right after I clicked the post icon..:p

First France, then us.

phill4paul
10-06-2017, 10:14 PM
I know what you're saying, and that occured to me right after I clicked the post icon..:p

First France, then us.

Also Japan.

Origanalist
10-06-2017, 10:15 PM
Also Japan.

Lol, well shit, it's too late for an edit now. Doh!

Swordsmyth
10-06-2017, 10:17 PM
Also Japan.


Lol, well $#@!, it's too late for an edit now. Doh!

Well I don't think they get credit for Japan, there were too many other factors involved.

Origanalist
10-06-2017, 10:28 PM
Well I don't think they get credit for Japan, there were too many other factors involved.

I don't really know much about Japan there.

Swordsmyth
10-06-2017, 10:33 PM
I don't really know much about Japan there.

Neither do I, I know that there was a Vietnamese resistance but I don't know much more.

My point is that the US and China had a lot more to do with destroying Japan's empire.