New ROE in Afghanistan to save civilian lives
In reaction to Afghan charges that US forces are careless about civilian casualties in engagements, the US forces are being almost painfully careful these days.
The rules of engagement are changing to reflect this concern for civilian casualties along with the new US commander according to an Associated Press article;
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, 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. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”
McChrystal’s predecessor, Army Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions “to minimize the need to resort to deadly force.”
But McChrystal’s orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said. The order should have the effect of reducing the use of airstrikes, mortars and artillery in villages.
The following video from Fox News‘ Steve Harrigan demonstrates how careful. It takes an Apache pilot ten minutes to get clearance to fire. WARNING: The video is pretty graphic;
It seems to me that the best strategy for the enemy to take advantage of this new weakness is to move back into urban areas and surround themselves with civilian shields. Now, I’m no expert, but then neither are the Taliban. It also seems to me that it will cause more civilian deaths because the Taliban casn use photos of civilians they themselves killed and blame it on Americans.
JD Johannes, Uncle Jimbo and McQ all have opinions on the new ROE.
Category: Terror War
Clear reporting, unlike most of the media.
Score one (really 14) for the good guys. My heart goes out to them. Tie as many hands as you can behind their backs, they’re still fighting the best they can.
The idea that you can fight a limited war is patently insane. War is ugly and brutish, but if you fight hard you hope it can be short. The measure by which we already exercise restraint is admirable and a testament to the quality of our fighting men and women.
It pisses me off to no end to see them keep ramping back the ability to fight effectively.
Tamil Insurgency, waged by by the Tamil minority (11% pop Sri Lanka) took 25 years to end.
Malay Emergency 1948-60, waged by Chinese minority. Flared again from 67-89.
Given the state of our fairy tale, err, fiat “economy”, makes one wonder how long we can participate in the tribal squabbles taking place in the toilet known as Afghanistan…
God DAMN! that video fires me up. Best part of waking up, is checking your favorites blogs with crusty eyes, and watching some delicious dead tango action.
This is precisely the sort of assthinking that allowed Iraq to get out of hand. It reeks of arrogance, cultural ignorance and lack of respect for our enemy.
An insurgency is a battle for three factors:
1) Sanctuary
2) Freedom of Action (not just maneuver)
3) Popular support
Successful counter-insurgencies retain all three for themselves while denying all three to the enemy. If the enemy retains any of the three elements it will continue.
In the Middle East the third factor is dependent on the first two (this is what bin Ladin meant by the “Strong Horse”). In the West, the first two are dependent upon the third.
Our enemy understands this about us. We are completely ignorant of him. This is why every target is a “Wedding Party” or a “Funeral”. They targeted our popular support (in the US) and now our freedom of action is eroded. Our sanctuary is next. The enemy will now be on the offensive just like Iraq in 2005-06.
And it is the fault of our Generals. Their thinking is exemplified by the classic counter-insurgency nonsequiter:
“Killing one insurgent only creates another ten.”
Think that through for a moment. It is not only absurd on its face; it betrays a staggering cultural arrogance. I think I read somewhere that someone once said “war means fightin’ and fightin’ means killin'” (Yes I know it was Forrest, allow me my petty rhetorical devices). Our Military education system has failed us catastrophically.
I can’t speak for Afghanistan, but I KNOW Iraqi culture and respect it immensely. Never underestimate the value of killing someone in the Middle East. They play for blood, we play for money.
They are smarter than we are and know us better than we know them. Unpleasant to face, but it is true.
Leftist Western Governments are incapable of fighting a successful Mid-east counterinsurgency. The world view of the leftist precludes recognition of the underlying realities of warfare in the Middle East. The election of Obama (a vanity project for Middle America) has sealed our fate.
Serious question: Isn’t it kind of hard to fight a war if you have to constantly get permission from someone hundreds or thousands of miles away, and wait 15 minutes to get it? I would think fast action on the bad guys would be a whole lot more preferable. Obviously, I’m not a military expert….just doesn’t seem right, IMHO.
Kate,
Hard doesn’t matter, the problem is that it makes victory immpossible.
I remember in Iraq in ’06 reading a message from the MNC-I Commander about the need to “get inside the enemy’s decision cycle”. I nearly laughed myself silly. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) has seven steps, one of which has 17 substeps. We’re not getting inside anyones decision cycle.
Now we have, for all intents and purposes, ceded our decisions to our enemy. They now have the ability to completely define the battlefeild in all aspects.
This is a disaterous policy change in every possible way.
Pure, unadulterated, imbecilic, shit-ass military incompetance.
“Serious question: Isn’t it kind of hard to fight a war if you have to constantly get permission from someone hundreds or thousands of miles away, and wait 15 minutes to get it?”
Read “Hunting Al Quaeda” and weep…
We lost the Afghan war long before the Marxist schooled “community activist” from Chicago assumed the Presidency. He was just the final nail in the coffin.
Had plenty of the same restrictions in Iraq. And we had no problem killing plenty of Jib-Jabs. Sometimes took entirely too long to get permission by some units, but we usually eventually got permission to smoke’em.
Now with that said, I think the gunnery skills of the crew could be improved. Having seen a similar target like this in 2007, engaged the exact same way, this highlights a deficit in our AH64D gunnery training. The need and procedure of strafing. Unfortunately, our crews are taught to engage a point target. This is a great technique against a BMP but horrible against a linear target like that presented in the video. Despite our best efforts, it is tough to break the bad habit of the frontseater to keep the sight on target during the whole engagement sequence. Set burst limit to 20, aim at the closest target, and walk the gun up the line.
I was just surprised that the now commie-symp egomachine, Sheepherd Smith, wasn’t wearing his Code Pink drag today. Maybe next time.