ROE for drones loosened
The Washington Times reports that the rules of engagement for the drone war have been expanded from “ensure” civilians are not in a kill zone to “avoid” targeting civilians. I guess it’s because the lawyers are an integral part of combat these days.
In addition, instructions now tell commanders that collateral damage “must not be excessive” in relation to mission goals, according to Public Intelligence, a nonprofit research group that analyzed the military’s directives on drone strikes.
“These subtle but important changes in wording provide insight into the military’s attempts to limit expectations in regards to minimizing collateral damage and predicting the lethal effects of military operations,” Public Intelligence said in a recent report.
Of course, the reason they have to adjust the ROE is because insurgent fighters are insurgents and they mingle into the population for cover from direct combat.
Human rights groups say such secrecy prevents scrutiny and accountability for civilian casualties. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have released reports focused on Pakistan and Yemen that say the strikes could be illegal and that the U.S. has killed more than 4,700 people, including more than 1,000 civilians.
Administration officials say the strikes are legal because the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda and its associates. They also insist there is a wide gap between the government’s civilian casualty count and those of human rights groups.
While I regret the loss of innocent lives, how innocent are the camp followers of al Qaeda, really? If this administration can loosen the ROE of their favored programs like the drone war, why can’t they loosen the ROE for troops on the ground, too?
Category: Terror War
‘Why can’t they loosen the ROE for troops on the ground, too?’ Uh, because that would make for some common sense.
ROEs should be loosened across the board. The only reason we’re “losing” is because of these stupid, politically correct, liberal policies. Name one war in history where civilian casualties weren’t a major factor. You can’t, because that’s how warfare goes.
@2 – Up until Vietnam, civilian casualties were an integral part of warfare and it was considered unfortunate but inevitable that as you took down the enemy’s infrastructure, civilians were involved. It wasn’t until the Boomers got their panties twisted over the buh-buh-buh-BAYBIES of every stripe, that we acquired the ridiculous notion that wars could be fought and won without casualties on either side.
^^^^^^Exactly: what was said above^^^^^^^^^
‘Why can’t they loosen the ROE for troops on the ground, too?’ Way too much common, military sense in that question. These are the same Washington led ROE in a different wrapper than I experienced in Vietnam. Fighting with one hand behind our back. Politicians have never led or won a successful war. The military does that. We bombed the hell out of Europe in WWII to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure and ability to make war. We also had in mind to demoralize the enemy. There were massive civilian casualties but it was determined to be a necessary cost of winning the war. I am not in favor of civilians getting killed. I am in favor of our troops being able to defend themselves as they see fit and let the Afghanistan people know we do not tolerate aid and comfort to the Taliban.
Let me get this straight…
We are supposed to not target civilians, even though ALL of the enemy fighters we face are non-uniformed personnel and hide among civilians.
However, nobody is complaining whenever these enemy fighters go and blow themselves up in civilian public establishments?
You know, I am fully of the mind that we should follow the Geneva Convention when it comes to the captured insurgents…
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of “illegal combatant”) and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
@ flagwaver:
I read these chage to a loosening of the ROE; “ensure,” to me, says “you will not let it happen” while “avoid” means “try your best not to let it happen.”
Rules of engagement policy change because of the new theater of operations, the united states of America.
Prove me wrong.
“collateral damage must not be excessive”. Gee, I sure would like to order up a drone strike with that statement hanging over my head. What the hell does that mean? Another way for a DC Dumbass to come back 3 months later and go after the guy who ordered it.