Troops still struggle with an unclear ROE

Reuters reports that the investigation into the destruction of a hospital in Kunduz last year highlights the problem that we all know exists, but the Pentagon doesn’t want to talk about – the rules of engagement that the soldiers use to make the on-the-scene decisions while bullets are flying by them are more murky than ever before. The classic problem of soldiers asking for permission to fight from politicians;

The Kunduz report indicates at least some U.S. troops have been sent into battle with questions unanswered.

The Green Beret complained that failure to provide clear guidance represented “moral cowardice”, and that political leaders intentionally keep the mission vague.

That allows them to “reap the rewards of success without facing the responsibility of failure,” he added.

Soldiers pleaded for “clearer guidance” and more clarification of overly complicated rules, according to investigators.

The strength of the American military has always been the ability of the soldiers on the ground to make independent decisions based of the changing situation on the ground. All of our enemies throughout history have complained about how the actions of unit commanders from squad to Brigade-size units are not easily predicted. Armed only with the “commander’s intent”, leaders have always achieved the desired outcome with minimum supervision. However, that is harder to achieve since the politicians have the ability to communicate directly with troops in contact from the safety of the cushy office far from the sounds of battle.

A thousand books and memoirs have communicated soldiers’ frustration with the nanny politicians and their micromanagement of the battlefield. In World War II, President Roosevelt would have to make a plane trip to communicate his desires to General Eisenhower, but 20 years later, President Johnson was picking targets in the basement of the White House for individual bombing missions. During Desert Storm, President Bush turned General Schwartzkopf loose on Saddam Hussein with his guidance and now we’re back to the White approving every bullet fired against terrorists who aren’t hamstrung by similar restrictions.

In the heat of the battle, lines can be blurred, and the problem is not exclusive to Afghanistan: questions have arisen over the role of U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.S. Navy SEAL was killed by Islamic State this month.

“‘How far do you want to go?’ is not a proper response to ‘How far do you want us to go?'” one special forces member told investigators in a report into the U.S. air strikes on a hospital in Kunduz that killed 42 medical staff, patients and caretakers.

It’s typical of politicians who don’t trust their military to accomplish the over-arching political goals. It’s also typical of politicians who have no coherent strategy to communicate to their military subordinates.

Category: Politics