Retired U.S. General Says Obama Would Rather Spill American Blood Than Insult Islamists

AUTHOR

December 31, 2013 9:03am PST

In a war that Obama was handed, yet has done little to resolve, it’s quite clear the amount of respect he has for our military men and woman as well as American blood.  That being said, a retired U.S. General has spoken out against Obama saying Obama would rather spill the blood of our soldiers than insult Islamists.

Retired Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry explains that according to Obama’s rules of engagement, you are no longer allowed to draw your weapon on just mere suspicions.  Instead, soldiers are ordered that their weapons remain holstered until an actual act of aggression be inflicted upon them.

(See also: Retired U.S. General Destroys Obama Criticizing His “Amateur” Leadership)

In other words, instead of being preemptive and potentially saving your life and that of your friends and troop, Obama would rather you just not insult them.

Curry gave an example stating:

“An Afghanistan soldier walks into an American headquarters. One of the American officers doesn’t like the Afghan’s looks and starts to draw his weapon. The senior American officer present says, “You know the new rules of engagement; put your gun away. We are to trust members of the Afghani military unless they draw a weapon or show other signs of overt hostility.” The American officer returns his weapon to its holster. The Afghani soldier smiles, draws his pistol and shoots both Americans dead.”

And he’s exactly right. Now if that soldier were able to draw his weapon and temporarily detain the man, he would have found his weapon and prevented unnecessary bloodshed.  But because, God forbid we offend anyone, our soldiers aren’t allowed to preemptively defend themselves?

This is beyond political correctness and should be categorized under insane tactics of war.  After all, that is why we’re over there isn’t it? We are at war with a select population of that country, but we must act as police officers?

Curry say’s that this isn’t necessarily a new thing as the tactics of war have been changing for some time now.  The retired General states that for the longest time, the tactics of war have been clearly demonstrated as “win at any cost.”

(See also: General Calls for Obama’s “Forceful Resignation”)

And as humanity attempts to evolve itself to a new “tolerant” form of life where we can all coexists, much of the world is resisting to do so.  So as we attempt to give others the benfit of the doubt so not to offend anyone, these other “soldiers” who are still in the mindset of “win at any cost,” are taking advantage of it.

Curry gives another example, this time recalling back to the Vietnam War saying:

“The seeds of this over control of combat actions were planted many years before. I recall once when I was controlling an airstrike in Vietnam – my radio call sign was CatKiller Six — that I couldn’t get the fighter-bombers to attack the target I marked with my rockets no matter how hard I tried. Finally, in disgust, I called off the airstrike and told them to go home saying, “It shouldn’t be that hard to level a few mud huts in a village.”

“You want us to bomb the village,” the strike leader asked?

“Yes,” I said, “Since late last night all friendly civilians have been evacuated out of the village.  Only Viet Cong enemy forces are left. Since you can’t hit the houses they are hiding it, the South Vietnamese will have to clear out the village by fighting house to house, and they will take a lot of casualties.”

“Village, CatKiller Six?  Why didn’t you say so … Flight, this is flight leader … follow me. We’re going to attack the village.”  Which is exactly what they proceeded to do, but only after insisting that I give my name, in the clear, as the person authorizing the strike.”

So what do you guys think—are we too “tolerant” and “politically correct” for the times, or do these people really deserve that respect? Let us know in a comment below!

comments

You must login in order to leave a comment.