US deaths in Afghanistan rise with restrictive ROE
The Washington Times‘ Rowan Scarborough notices that US casualties have increased as the rules of engagement restricted our troops’ response to threats in Afghanistan.
A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.
But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
I remember when this blog was the only place on the internet that you could read that, during the large number of green-on-blue attacks that were occurring, our troops weren’t allowed to arm themselves in the presence of their supposed allies to create an atmosphere of trust. During that period, I was getting emails and phone calls asking me where I was getting that information, because no one else was saying it in public. Well, the troops in Afghanistan were telling me. Then, lo and behold, out of no where came the announcement from the Pentagon that the troops would be allowed to arm themselves…in combat.
This administration and it’s lackeys at DoD aren’t as interested in saving American lives as they are in sending a message and looking good in the press. Human rights organizations have admitted that the Taliban and al Qaeda are responsible for many times more deaths among the civilian population of Afghanistan than those who are killed collaterally by US military operations, yet, the commanders continue to hamstring the troops with restrictive ROE.
Category: Terror War
Has anyone ever asked who has the dopes by the short hairs in that 5-sided big building in DC?
I only ask because it’s obvious even to a blind man that somebody does.
That guy if an F-ing genius. More restrictive ROE equals more casulties. See that is why all of us are just silly Grunts, we never take the time to really study stuff and figure it out. Our years of experience just do not measure up, thank God we have reporters to tell us what we see and know. Now the Top Brass have someone to listen to.
The top brass have always had someone to listen to. They have had the commanders and troops in the field as well as casualty reports. They don’t care. Obama and the DoD are all about looking good to the liberals. Not about defending our troops in a war zone. All this is another reason we should be out of that place ASAP! Obama is willing to kill American troops. I repeat, he is willing to have American troops die on foreign soil at a rate that is unnecessary for some inane, inexplicable reasons. I do not understand what the end game or short point is to these current ROE. Except they make an already dangerous place far more dangerous. This will, in my book, go down as one of the biggest shames of the Obama legacy. Carnage of our own troops. How does a man, look at casualty reports of soldiers HE is Commander in Chief of and not know in his heart he did everything in his power to protect and defend them as they carried out his ultimate orders. This issue and subject have me so pissed I can hardly type.
To my last post I correct the last statement.
“How does a man, look at casualty reports of soldiers HE is Commander in Chief of and know in his heart he did not do everything in his power to protect and defend them as they carried out his ultimate orders”.
That is how it was meant to read.
Sparky – you answered your own questions: They don’t care. Obama and the DoD are all about looking good to the liberals. Not about defending our troops in a war zone.
You are asking the question as if they cared…. they don’t. If it doesn’t make political points, a sound bite, or a video clip – it does not matter to them.
People need to be very careful when using this information. I am not saying this is in accurate conclusion, but the arguments here are an excellent example of people using correlation to equal causation. “Gun Control is strict in Europe, therefore crime is low.” or “Gun ownership is up in the US since the 90s, therefore crime is down.” It’s all BS if you don’t look at all the data or just look for what you want to believe. The surge started in 2009. Maybe the fact the there are more US Soldiers to conduct more operations and bump into and find the bad guys is creating more combat and causing the spike. Maybe yes, maybe no, but clearly another valid possibility. Don’t be so ready to jump to conclusions:
“Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
I was at Camp Brown in Spring 2010, working with the UAE helo unit at Kandahar. One day, one of the Combat Controllers walked into our TOC and told me that he was done. He wasn’t quitting on the spot, but he was getting out the military as soon as he got back to the states. Turns out, he and the ODA he was with the previous day had gotten involved in a TIC with some armed Afghans near the Sangin river. When he called for air support, instead of getting a “roger, on the way,” he was asked, “can’t you just move back and break contact?” “What, you want us to retreat?” he asked. “That might be best” was the reply he got back.
At the time, McCrystal and his Sergeant Major were spending all kinds of energy trying to get the Burger King kiosk at Kandahar shut down (never mind the Canadian-owned Tim Hortons right next to it that will pick up any business BK drops.) Those two things really brought it home to me. I knew we were just wasting time in that country, backing up towards to the exit while pretending we’re still committed to victory.
Every time I see McCrystal on TV, I wonder if he intentionally tanked his own command with that Rolling Store reporter, just so he could get away from that shit-show in Afghanistan. It wouldn’t surprise me, general officers are a shady bunch and you never can quite trust what they say or do (kind of like the current CINC, appropriately enough.)