Clarity and resolve: keys to victory

Our troops in Iraq must receive a clear mission and unwaivering support

Excerpted from commentary in today’s New York Post by retired U.S. Army officer Gordon Cucullu:

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been “clarified.” “There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long,” [Gen. David] Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary – even harmful – restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

“I’ve made two things clear,” Petraeus emphasized: “My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I’ve written a letter to all Coalition forces saying ‘your chain-of-command will stay with you.’ I think that solved the issue.”

“Mission accomplished” in Iraq: libs now say

Last night, I heard a Democratic Party pundit say the United States ought to withdraw from Iraq because it had accomplished the three things it set out to do there: give the people of Iraq a chance at democracy, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and determine if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq that Senators Biden, Clinton, Hagel, Kerry, Reid, and Rockefeller all voted for, along with Congressman John Murtha, in October 2002 also addressed a concern brought to the fore the moment American Airlines Flight 11 was slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center: