Are New Battle Rules Tying Soldiers Hands?

Discussion in 'Military' started by Vel, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. Vel
    Offline

    Vel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,463
    Thanks Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +1,914
    It seems to me that this order, while I understand the premise behind it, will result in the Taliban stepping up using civilians to defeat the U.S. military. It reminds me of the legislation they had in Florida that denied you the right to defend yourself if you could run away.


    June 22, 2009
    New US battle rule: No fighting near Afghan homes

    By JASON STRAZIUSO
    Associated Press Writer
    The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.
    The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.
    Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year.
    Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed.
    McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, 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, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."


    www.mysanantonio.com
     
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    read "lone survivor" you will understand roe's and there impact on us troops
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2009
  3. Vel
    Offline

    Vel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,463
    Thanks Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +1,914


    I haven't read the book, but I'm somewhat familiar with the story. The story also doesn't change my opinion about this new policy. I think that our troops need to be as chary of Afghan civilians physical well being and their cultural sensitivities as possible, but, I also believe that announcing this policy is tantamount to instructing the Taliban as to how they can defeat the U.S. military.
     
  4. Metternich
    Offline

    Metternich Federalist Farmer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    222
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    University of San Diego
    Ratings:
    +31
    To consider the nature of what the Taliban is, is to accept that there are few honestly 'innocent' Afghans in the areas which have the largest Taliban concentrations. The Taliban does not have a military because it it is an idea - at best - an idea that anyone can pick up after work, shoot a few rounds at American and NATO soldiers, then go home to screw the wife. To believe that not targeting that persons house because we're fearful he'll become a true full-timer like a few thousand is a poor policy.

    We know from Iraq a few ground rules, A: we need the people on our side, B: it's more then a kill-count and C: we must rely on troops on the ground.

    Yet this is a facsimile fix, a fixing of the fundamentals is what we need - not some hollow gesture that will only kill American troops. We get people on our side by giving them protection, by blowing apart any Taliban (be the individual in question a part or full-timer) that poke their head out. We need more then a kill-count but we need to consider that to have a lower kill-count we'll need more troops (C) and by refusing to act in a marginalizing fashion with regards to that weakness (we have our troops accepting more responsibilities in warfare without more supports) only more casualties can result.

    In short, we need more troops not more rules.
     
  5. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    What is really the craps is that the Taliban offered to turn over Ossama the Mama if we would try him in another country other than the USA.

    Wonder what would have happened then if they had accepted that offer. Hell, if they didn't find him guilty we could have killed him before he was safely away.

    Some politicians just need a war to make them a war time president. As General Smedley Butler, USMC, said: War Is A Racket. You don't make money by not sending the troops off to fight and die for your profit.
     
  6. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    The ridiculous rules of engagement we are making our soldiers adhere to in Afghanistan and Iraq are undoubtedly leading to the unnecessary deaths of those same soldiers.

    And this goes for the idiotic insistence that we MIRANDIZE fucking hostiles. What a load of crap. Why don't we just line our guys up and let the assholes take pot shots at them?
     
  7. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,765
    Thanks Received:
    7,234
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,852
    Me no likey. Bad idea.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Bootneck
    Offline

    Bootneck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,576
    Thanks Received:
    2,972
    Trophy Points:
    2,050
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +4,172
    The Taliban always have, and always will, use cover of civilian areas to attack from. With such ROEs, clearing a village or urban area of insurgents will become a no-no. Tours in Afghanistan are hard enough as it is, without asking troops to enter a fight with one hand tied behind their backs. We might as well use fucking paint ball guns!

    Better to confine NATO and US ops in Afghanistan to training their security forces and leaving them to take the fight to the Taliban.
     
  9. Vel
    Offline

    Vel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,463
    Thanks Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +1,914

    I wonder what these kinds of policies are going to do to the re-enlistment rate of our armed forces?
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    We might as well pack it in now and leave.
     

Share This Page