- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,427
- 10,015
- 900
Under Obama, there was more concern for political correctness, rather than reducing US troops' casualties.
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created a hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” Wayne Simmons, a retired US intelligence officer who worked at NATO headquarters in Kabul under McChrystal and Petraeus, told the Times.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the ROE, casualties more than doubled,” Simmons went on. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
Here is one of the ROEs that caused casualties.
A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight; one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy
The Newly Relaxed Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and Civilian Casualties
This ROE change is almost certainly indicative of the Trump administration’s determination to enhance the effect of U.S. combat power in Afghanistan, especially given the uncontested control of the air. While Mattis did not go into detail on the origins of the proximity requirement, it almost certainly emerged from the U.S. effort to minimize Afghan civilian casualties resulting from both collateral damage and from mistakes.
The Newly Relaxed Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and Civilian Casualties - Just Security
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created a hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” Wayne Simmons, a retired US intelligence officer who worked at NATO headquarters in Kabul under McChrystal and Petraeus, told the Times.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the ROE, casualties more than doubled,” Simmons went on. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
Here is one of the ROEs that caused casualties.
A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight; one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy
The Newly Relaxed Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and Civilian Casualties
This ROE change is almost certainly indicative of the Trump administration’s determination to enhance the effect of U.S. combat power in Afghanistan, especially given the uncontested control of the air. While Mattis did not go into detail on the origins of the proximity requirement, it almost certainly emerged from the U.S. effort to minimize Afghan civilian casualties resulting from both collateral damage and from mistakes.
The Newly Relaxed Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and Civilian Casualties - Just Security
