Troops in Afghanistan to be Sacrificed

This is bad. The fundamental order for our soldiers in Afghanistan is about to be shifted from “attack” to “retreat”:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said.

Strombringer sums up the foolishness:

This order will cause our forces to hesitate under fire, and in combat hesitation is fatal.

Essentially, we've just instituted the same self-imposed "no-fire" zones that assisted our Communist enemies in Vietnam.

The new directive is issued out of a fear that attacks make our enemies mad. Ostensibly, it is about minimizing civilian casualties. But in Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), there are no civilians. There is no bright line (uniforms and insignia) separating combatants and non-combatants. Those who aid the enemy wllingly are the enemy. Those who aid the enemy unwillingly are hostages.

Politicians—and politicians in uniform—are hoping to apply post-modern thinking to combat. They aim to conduct war without violence.

Our surrender has begun.