President Obama's Shameful Afghanistan Policy

Among the many issues not being discussed by the 2012 Presidential candidates is military policy in Afghanistan.  There is no daylight whatsoever between the proposed strategy of Mr. Romney and the existing strategy of the President. Romney ought to be talking about the disgraceful rules of engagement that the President has saddled on our soldiers in Afghanistan, which has lead to a US casualty rate per month that is nearly four times higher than under the Bush Presidency. 

Obama is generally regarded as having a successful foreign policy, the basis of this record is the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The success of the raid on the terrorist leader cannot be disputed.  One successful mission does not a military policy make. Despite the President's shallow basis for claiming success in military policy, Romney has not distinguished his position from the President's, except to say that he will not cut military budgets below their current level. 

Romney is missing a huge opportunity to discuss an issue that means life or death for our troops in harm's way.  Rules of engagement are a set of standing orders issued to soldiers stationed in hostile areas.  The orders specify under what conditions our soldiers can engage an enemy, or perceived enemy.  For instance, under aggressive rules of engagement, soldiers can engage (fire upon) persons suspected of being enemies, without waiting for those persons to fire first, or without waiting for further orders from superior officers or other military bureaucrats, who may or may not be present in the hostile area.  Passive rules of engagement, on the other hand, make it illegal for our soldiers to open fire on anyone, unless and until that person has taken hostile actions.  Unfortunately for our troops, passive rules of engagement in a place like Afghanistan mean more casualties as the President is trading the lives of our servicemen for those of Afghani combatants and civilians.

According to the NY Times, in an article published on August 21, 2012, the US has just surpassed its 2,000th casualty in Afghanistan.  The first 1,000 casualties took eight years of combat; the second 1,000 casualties took 27 months of combat.  In other words, under President Bush, the Afghanistan conflict cost around 10 soldiers per month, under President Obama, the conflict costs over 37 per month.  What does the US gain for the price paid by American families?  The people of Afghanistan hate us a little less for the occupation, maybe. Mr. Romney must discuss this disgraceful policy of the President.