I just heard the ROE are set to change in DAYS.

AllieBaba

Rookie
Oct 2, 2007
33,778
3,927
0
Why haven't I heard anything about this until now? Is it because I haven't been paying attention or was it not considered important enough to report?

I know that Paris Hilton was arrested for drug possession, but then released because the stuff belonged to her "friend". But I had no idea we were so close to finally addressing the huge issues with the rules of engagement in the middle east.

Does anyone else know anything about this?
 
Petraeus, who accepted the command of U.S. and NATO forces before several hundred U.S., coalition and Afghan officials in Kabul, has just months to show progress in turning back insurgents and convince both the Afghan people and neighboring countries that the U.S. is committed to preventing the country from again becoming a haven for al-Qaida and its terrorist allies.

He also must decide in the coming weeks or months whether to recalibrate the stringent rules of engagement laid down last summer by his predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who recently resigned over remarks that laid bare a dysfunctional civilian-military relationship.

Of Petraeus' early command decisions, this will be among the most closely watched, not only by ordinary Afghans, but also by his own troops in the field. So far, he has struck a delicate balance in public remarks about the issue.

At his Senate confirmation hearings last week, Petraeus said he foresaw no major shift in strategy in the Afghan war. But he has made clear that even if the rules of engagement do not change, the nuances of how they are implemented will get a close new look.

Assuming command on Sunday, Petraeus told his troops that while civilian safety remains a critical consideration, "as you and our Afghan partners on the ground get into tough situations, we must employ all assets to ensure your safety."

It was a remark intended to reassure those in the field that the safeguarding of Afghans was not to come at the expense of military lives.

Petraeus faces decision on 'rules of engagement' in Afghanistan - San Jose Mercury News
 
Petraeus was speaking in Brussels after briefing NATO ambassadors about his plans.

He sought to assuage concerns among NATO allies that the United States will take a tougher approach in operations against insurgents in Afghanistan.

Petraeus acknowledged there were concerns among some troops at the current rules of engagement, which put restrictions on coalition attacks to limit civilian casualties. But he said he had no plans to make it easier for NATO troops to use lethal force and said keeping reducing civilian casualties to an "absolute minimum" would remain a key objective.

"In a counterinsurgency, the human terrain is the decisive terrain," he said, "and therefore you must do everything humanly possible to protect the population and, indeed, again to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life."

Petraeus' visit comes a day after the U.S. Senate confirmed him to replace General Stanley McChrystal, who was fired after he made disparaging comments about the Obama administration in "Rolling Stone" magazine.
Petraeus Vows No Change In Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2010
 
A change in the way that the war in Afghanistan is fought could be on the way.

The new commander of US-led forces in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, is suggesting that he will review the rules of engagement.

Some troops have complained that the restraints, which curb the use of air power and heavy weapons if Afghan civilians are at risk, are putting Western forces in greater danger.

They also, it is claimed, make it harder to defeat the Taliban.

BBC News - War 'rules of engagement' to be reviewed
 
Petraeus Urged to Change Afghan War Rules
- Petraeus: 'We Are in This to Win' <FOX NEWS

[SNIP]

"
Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday urged Gen. David Petraeus to change the rules of engagement "as soon as possible" for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, saying the strict policy has "hurt morale" among American military.

The Connecticut independent senator, speaking from Kabul on "Fox News Sunday," said the incoming commander told him he was "committed" to reviewing the rules. Those rules, put in place by outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are classified but generally aim to limit civilian casualties by prohibiting troops from firing unless they're shot at -- or from launching bomb or artillery attacks when civilians are near the target.

Lieberman acknowledged that civilian casualties damage the counterinsurgency campaign U.S.-led troops are trying to wage, but said the policy has also put American troops in harm's way.

"Ultimately, we've got to be concerned about the safety of our American troops here," Lieberman said. He said he's heard stories about troops having to wait too long to get air support when under fire. "We can't let that happen."

[/SNIP]
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Indeed. That's what happens when politicians get involved. The conflict soon becomes a target of political correctness...and when that becomes the order of the day? We're doomed to failure.

And I dare say that's what the Liberal apologists want. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples.
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Nonsense. The ROE exists for tactical reasons and not to be "nice". Furthermore, General Petreaus has always been an advocate of the ROE. You can search out his comments about the matter. He recognizes that "free fire zones" in Viet Nam greatly facilitated the Viet Cong by breeding the insurgency.

In Afghanistan, the problem is finding the enemy. Not engaging them once you find them. The ROE exists to keep soldiers from being too trigger happy with the populace.

Like it or not, COIN requires soldiers to assume more risk then they would like for the overall mission.

Did you guys have no clue what we were getting into when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Let's fight to the death of the bad guys. Not our guys please. We have sacrificed far too many of our guys trying to be accommodating with our ROE and I'm getting damn tired of that. The ONLY way to fight a war is via overwhelming force and bludgeoning the enemy into total submission. Yes the innocent get hurt in war, but why not accept that, get it done, instead of dribbling out the hurt over years and ultimately racking up more casualities and misery than we would do the quicker more absolute way?

Every time we have used overwhelming force and defeated our enemy into unconditional surrender, the enemy wound up being our friend. Almost every time that we've pulled our punches and stopped short of bludgeoning our enemies into submission, our enemies have remained our enemies.
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Let's fight to the death of the bad guys. Not our guys please. We have sacrificed far too many of our guys trying to be accommodating with our ROE and I'm getting damn tired of that. The ONLY way to fight a war is via overwhelming force and bludgeoning the enemy into total submission. Yes the innocent get hurt in war, but why not accept that, get it done, instead of dribbling out the hurt over years and ultimately racking up more casualities and misery than we would do the quicker more absolute way?

Every time we have used overwhelming force and defeated our enemy into unconditional surrender, the enemy wound up being our friend. Almost every time that we've pulled our punches and stopped short of bludgeoning our enemies into submission, our enemies have remained our enemies.

That sounds great on paper. Now go to Afghanistan and find the "enemy to bludgeon".

You guys really demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between conventional and asymmetric war with these comments. You think the Taliban is going to surrender? At best, they will assimilate.
 
Sunday, Petraeus told his troops that while civilian safety remains a critical consideration, "as you and our Afghan partners on the ground get into tough situations, we must employ all assets to ensure your safety."

It was a remark intended to reassure those in the field that the safeguarding of Afghans was not to come at the expense of military lives.


When McChrystal took over as commander in June 2009, foreign forces in Afghanistan were the accidental cause of nearly as many civilian deaths as were the insurgents, who often deliberately put noncombatants in harm's way.

McChrystal set out to change that, and was credited with bringing about a substantial drop in the proportion of civilian casualties suffered at the hands of NATO's International Security Assistance Force and its Afghan allies.

Under the procedures put in place last summer, commanders could not fire on buildings or other sites where they had reason to think Afghan civilians might be present unless their own forces were in imminent danger of being overrun. And even then, they were told to break off engagements and withdraw rather than risk harming noncombatants.

Few in or outside the military contested McChrystal's underlying premise that civilian deaths caused by the West are highly counterproductive because they galvanize public fury and thus help bolster support for the Taliban. Alienating the townspeople and villagers who live in battle zones flies in the face of the United States' counterinsurgency strategy &#8212; one that bears the stamp of not only McChrystal but Petraeus himself, and is centered on winning Afghan hearts and minds.

For months there has been grumbling in the ranks that the rules of engagement sometimes hamper the ability of Western troops, who include nearly 100,000 Americans, to defend themselves, let alone move aggressively against a determined enemy.

In the heat of battle, the restrictions can diminish to the vanishing point the American advantages of superior firepower and technology, some field commanders say, thus leaving small units particularly vulnerable.

The change of command in Afghanistan has civilians worried that it will make it even more dangerous to come into contact with the foreign forces in their midst. Already, many motorists freeze with anxiety at the sight of a Western convoy or when coming up on a military checkpoint, fearing they will be taken for would-be suicide attackers and shot.

Civilian casualties have been a particularly sensitive issue between the Western coalition and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Petraeus has already given Karzai his personal pledge that preventing civilian deaths will continue to be a top priority, presidential aides said.

In his remarks to a crowd outside NATO headquarters, Petraeus praised McChrystal. "The progress made in recent months &#8212; in the face of a determined enemy &#8212; is in many respects the result of the vision, energy and leadership he provided," he said. The new commander said everyone had worked hard during McChrystal's tenure in Afghanistan to carry out an effective civilian-military counterinsurgency, one that Petraeus pioneered in Iraq.

Petraeus also sought to counter the skepticism, even defeatism, that was on display last month during hearings in Washington when lawmakers challenged Pentagon assertions that progress was being made in the war.

He acknowledged the fight in Afghanistan has been grueling but insisted progress had been made: 7 million Afghan children in school compared with fewer than 1 million a decade ago; child immunization rates at 70 percent or higher; new roads; and bustling economies in several cities.

"After years of war, we have arrived at a critical moment," Petraeus said. "We must demonstrate to the Afghan people &#8212; and to the world &#8212; that al-Qaida and its network of extremist allies will not be allowed to once again establish sanctuaries in Afghanistan from which they can launch attacks on the Afghan people and on freedom-loving nations around the world."
Petraeus faces decision on 'rules of engagement' in Afghanistan - San Jose Mercury News
 
Last edited:
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Let's fight to the death of the bad guys. Not our guys please. We have sacrificed far too many of our guys trying to be accommodating with our ROE and I'm getting damn tired of that. The ONLY way to fight a war is via overwhelming force and bludgeoning the enemy into total submission. Yes the innocent get hurt in war, but why not accept that, get it done, instead of dribbling out the hurt over years and ultimately racking up more casualities and misery than we would do the quicker more absolute way?

Every time we have used overwhelming force and defeated our enemy into unconditional surrender, the enemy wound up being our friend. Almost every time that we've pulled our punches and stopped short of bludgeoning our enemies into submission, our enemies have remained our enemies.

That sounds great on paper. Now go to Afghanistan and find the "enemy to bludgeon".

You guys really demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between conventional and asymmetric war with these comments. You think the Taliban is going to surrender? At best, they will assimilate.

Well if there is no enemy to bludgeon, then there isn't much point to fighting a war at all is there? The ONLY moral war is to eliminate an enemy who intends to do savage harm to us or our friends. And the only reasonable way to fight such a war is to take out that enemy. If it can't be done, then we should shove our stuff back onto transports and go home.

I have not and will not EVER agree to sending our guys into harms way under ROE that gives the enemy every advantage and puts our guys unnecessarily at much higher risk. If we alienate a people in the process of winning a war necessary to fight so be it. So far that hasn't happened. We have taken out enemies that were horrible to their own people too, and that's why those countries have all become our friends even though many many innocents were killed. And I think every time we have used overwhelming force, many many lives on both sides were spared.
 
Well if there is no enemy to bludgeon, then there isn't much point to fighting a war at all is there? The ONLY moral war is to eliminate an enemy who intends to do savage harm to us or our friends. And the only reasonable way to fight such a war is to take out that enemy. If it can't be done, then we should shove our stuff back onto transports and go home.

I didn't say they weren't there. I said finding them was the problem. You are taking a simplistic view of the ground conditions in Afghanistan. This isn't a matter of some easy solution that is being ignored for the sake of political correctness. It's a matter of how to defeat a complicated enemy in a complicated situation. The best way to do it is to remove popular support from the people. The entails minimizing innocent casualties. Again, this has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the best way to address find a suitable end state.

I have not and will not EVER agree to sending our guys into harms way under ROE that gives the enemy every advantage and puts our guys unnecessarily at much higher risk. If we alienate a people in the process of winning a war necessary to fight so be it. So far that hasn't happened. We have taken out enemies that were horrible to their own people too, and that's why those countries have all become our friends even though many many innocents were killed. And I think every time we have used overwhelming force, many many lives on both sides were spared.

Then you shouldn't, in good conscious, support any modern war. The ROE is not going anywhere and the day and age of indiscriminate fire in combat are gone.

Once again, you can't win a war like Afghanistan if you alienate the people.

I'll never forget when one of my fire missions got denied by the TOC. It pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect it was the right call. We might have gotten the bad guys, but more likely we would have blown up some goat herders. Then their whole tribe becomes sympathetic to the Taliban and starts providing them with material aid and comfort.

That Taliban can't survive in Afghanistan without the support of the people. They have little or no logistical disposition and have to rely on the people to shelter them.
 
we promised karzai that we would still keep the rules in that kept civilian deaths down which means no real change is going to happen unless we break our promise
 
we promised karzai that we would still keep the rules in that kept civilian deaths down which means no real change is going to happen unless we break our promise

No real change is going to happen, because Petraeus has always been an advocate of the ROE.

He gets it.

Anyone curious to find out his thoughts on the matter should refer to page 215 of the Counterinsurgency manual he wrote.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33668727/Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual
 
Last edited:
Well if there is no enemy to bludgeon, then there isn't much point to fighting a war at all is there? The ONLY moral war is to eliminate an enemy who intends to do savage harm to us or our friends. And the only reasonable way to fight such a war is to take out that enemy. If it can't be done, then we should shove our stuff back onto transports and go home.

I didn't say they weren't there. I said finding them was the problem. You are taking a simplistic view of the ground conditions in Afghanistan. This isn't a matter of some easy solution that is being ignored for the sake of political correctness. It's a matter of how to defeat a complicated enemy in a complicated situation. The best way to do it is to remove popular support from the people. The entails minimizing innocent casualties. Again, this has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the best way to address find a suitable end state.

I have not and will not EVER agree to sending our guys into harms way under ROE that gives the enemy every advantage and puts our guys unnecessarily at much higher risk. If we alienate a people in the process of winning a war necessary to fight so be it. So far that hasn't happened. We have taken out enemies that were horrible to their own people too, and that's why those countries have all become our friends even though many many innocents were killed. And I think every time we have used overwhelming force, many many lives on both sides were spared.

Then you shouldn't, in good conscious, support any modern war. The ROE is not going anywhere and the day and age of indiscriminate fire in combat are gone.

Once again, you can't win a war like Afghanistan if you alienate the people.

I'll never forget when one of my fire missions got denied by the TOC. It pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect it was the right call. We might have gotten the bad guys, but more likely we would have blown up some goat herders. Then their whole tribe becomes sympathetic to the Taliban and starts providing them with material aid and comfort.

That Taliban can't survive in Afghanistan without the support of the people. They have little or no logistical disposition and have to rely on the people to shelter them.

I'm not going to argue with somebody who has been there, has seen it, has done it, has put their life on the line. And thank you for your service to our country.

I am, however, going with what I read and hear and am told by the guys and gals--friends, acquaintances, loved ones--who have been over there and report that we have lost people, sustained many injuries, and missions have been much more high risk because of the ROE. There are some who see it as you do; most I think don't see it as you see it so much.

Again civilians or other innocents should never be targeted. All reasonable care should be taken to prevent targeting them. Of course there will be special circumstances all the time such as the one you described.

But the sentiment of most of the folks I've talked to is that those who are sympathetic to the Taliban are going to be sympathetic pretty much despite anything we do or don't do.

Wouldn't you think our current methods of war would be producing more results if we were going to win in Afghanistan using the current plan and ROE? We've been at it now for nine years and June was the bloodiest month ever while by ones and twos and tens we lose people every week, and the casualty count keeps going up, not down.

All I want to know is that we are giving ourselves a chance to win. At least in Iraq we can see the constructed and reconstructed infrastructure, most of the people living normal lives and prospering, much reduced violence, elections taking place, and an elected government in place and very close to being able to take over their own security without our help. The average citizen in Iraq is now more safe than he would be in Washington DC or Chicago.

What can we point to as improvement in Afghanistan? I just don't see the point of a perpetual war that doesn't seem to be producing anything other than continuous conflict.
 
I'm not going to argue with somebody who has been there, has seen it, has done it, has put their life on the line. And thank you for your service to our country.

I am, however, going with what I read and hear and am told by the guys and gals--friends, acquaintances, loved ones--who have been over there and report that we have lost people, sustained many injuries, and missions have been much more high risk because of the ROE. There are some who see it as you do; most I think don't see it as you see it so much.

Then their command has not adequately explained the issue to them. I remember when we had to sit my guys down and explain the importance of the ROE. Ironically, we used Petreaus' comments in the Rick's book to explain it.

Again, this is not a conventional war. It's completely different. You'll never understand what is going on if you approach it through the lens of World War II. That was a completely different situation with completely different tactics.

More succinctly, if we could win by bombing them into the stone age then we would have done that already. How well did shock and awe work in Iraq? If anything, it helped the insurgency gain ground. You don't get anywhere in this matter by alienating the population.

That requires our soldiers to assume more risk then they would like. It's just the unique cross that a modern soldier carries in this particular conflict. In comparison to charging into machine gun nests on Omaha beach, it's a small on the ground scale.

Again civilians or other innocents should never be targeted. All reasonable care should be taken to prevent targeting them. Of course there will be special circumstances all the time such as the one you described.

But the sentiment of most of the folks I've talked to is that those who are sympathetic to the Taliban are going to be sympathetic pretty much despite anything we do or don't do.

Wouldn't you think our current methods of war would be producing more results if we were going to win in Afghanistan using the current plan and ROE? We've been at it now for nine years and June was the bloodiest month ever while by ones and twos and tens we lose people every week, and the casualty count keeps going up, not down.

No. The problem in Afghanistan is economic and not military in nature. That's the greatest barrier to peace.

All I want to know is that we are giving ourselves a chance to win. At least in Iraq we can see the constructed and reconstructed infrastructure, most of the people living normal lives and prospering, much reduced violence, elections taking place, and an elected government in place and very close to being able to take over their own security without our help. The average citizen in Iraq is now more safe than he would be in Washington DC or Chicago.

What can we point to as improvement in Afghanistan? I just don't see the point of a perpetual war that doesn't seem to be producing anything other than continuous conflict.

Iraq has oil to support the government we set up. That is the difference.
 
Oh they know WHY the ROE is in place GTH. They understand that very well. And they all repeat the same stuff you've been saying.

The thing is, you seem to approve of the way you were asked to fight this conflict. Most of them don't. They follow orders. They respect their superiors. They do what they are told to do. But they know it could be different.

Most of them have also had tours in Iraq and would very much like to be able to see the same kinds of success in Afghanistan.

So again, if we can't make another 'Iraq' out of Afghanistan, what do we hope to accomplish? If there is no infrastructure to build, no economy to restore, and things seems to be getting much worse rather than better militarily, isn't it time to rethink what we're doing and how we are doing it?

I sure gave the Bush administration hell for fighting a too wimpy war in Iraq for too long even as I supported the concept of a free and independent Iraq that would be an shining example for the folks in the Middle East. I thought there too overwhelming force should be used, inflict maximum pain quick and absolute, defeat the enemy totally, and then rebuild it as we and the Allies did in Germany, Italy, Japan et al.

Can that be accomplished in Afghanistan? If not, then what can be accomplished. And what price is worth it?
 
What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Indeed. That's what happens when politicians get involved. The conflict soon becomes a target of political correctness...and when that becomes the order of the day? We're doomed to failure.

And I dare say that's what the Liberal apologists want. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples.

And interestingly enough? Conflicts that two Democrats got us embroiled in.

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one? But he will do his best to ensure this one ends the same as the examples I gave.

It's almost a sure bet unless the people stand up and demand the shenanigans cease and we win this on OUR terms and cease with tying the hands of our troops.

These cretins want to repeat bad history at every turn to punctuate their do-gooder idealsm (PC by any other name), while our troops are killed for no good reason but the mishandling of the conflict by these Liberal politicians.

And that puts our security at further risk, and makes us a riper target for our enemies. Our enemies respect toughness...right now they laugh as they plot our demise.
 

Forum List

Back
Top