Shades of Nam: "Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive"

[mal]

Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive - Afghanistan- msnbc.com

MARJAH, Afghanistan - Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

---

^Look, Newsweak had the same Tone...

I guess it doesn't matter... Obama can Fail in either Iraq or the Ghanistan and simply Blame (43) for it, like he does everything else.

Or in the More Recent Absurdity where we had Biden Crediting Obama for how Well Iraq has gone...



peace...

 

[Toome]

I've got mixed views on this. I understand the wisdom behind the strategy, but it's a classic Catch-22. If we are to successfully counter the insurgents, then we need stricter rules of engagement to lower the risks to civilians. This is a valuable lesson-learned from Vietnam: winning the locals' hearts and souls. With that comes a greater risk that more US troops will be killed. If we go with more free ROE on the other hand, then more civilians will risk being killed, and that only feeds the Taliban's ability to get more support from the locals.

To conventional-minded folks, this is a pretty asinine policy. To those who have served with special ops, this is the right thing to do. However, there's one serious glitch: Obama has yet to give a "stay the course" commitment to the Afghan people. Until he does so, the Taliban has the upper hand.