December 14, 2009 New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns the game plan based the rules imposed limits. The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzais complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights. Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them. The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day. Restrictions include the following: No night or surprise searches Villagers are to be warned prior to searches Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present Only women can search women Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are. Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/rules-of-engagement-killing-u-s-soldiers/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Say Rules Of Engagement Are 'Too ... www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/us-troops-in-afghanistan_n... Jul 08, 2010 · ... U.S. troops in Afghanistan say rules of engagement ... the same ethically challenged thinking that the US could have "won" in Vietnam by killing a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Political Pistachio: SEAL Team 6: Obama's Rules of Engagement ... politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/10/seal-team-6-obamas-rules... Oct 20, 2012 · 2012 Presidential Race ... Obama's Rules of Engagement Killing Troops ... In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, ...
March 12, 2012 By CMAC [/B]OBAMA KILLED THESE 16 AFGHANS. TREATING U.S. SERVICEMEN LIKE HUMAN PUNCHING BAGS IS INSANE. Taliban Vows Revenge for Killing of 16 Afghan Civilians United States on alert for reprisal attacks following Sundays apparent shooting rampage by a US Army sergeant in southern Afghanistan Full story » | Comment 1. Obamas Rules of Engagement In Afghanistan Will Ensure Our WWW.floppingaces.net/ /obamas-rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan-will- Cached Jun 21, 2010 Obamas Rules of Engagement In Afghanistan Will Ensure Our Failure. By: Curt. The new rules of fighting a war .Obama style, via George F. 2. The rules murdering our troops NYPOST.com www.nypost.com/p/news/ /item_u935ECKNWXpLK8C5D96pdNCached - Similar Sep 24, 2009 Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink: 3. Obamas rules of engagement: Calling lawyers for permission to kill hotair.com/ /obamas-rules-of-engagement-calling-lawyers-for-perm Cached - Similar Feb 23, 2010 Obamas rules of engagement: Calling lawyers for permission to kill Journal article highlights the infuriating rules of engagement that we are 4. Petraeus To Modify Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement, Source Says www.foxnews.com/ /petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagemen Cached - Similar Jun 25, 2010 Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama 5. The PJ Tatler » What are Obamas Rules of Engagement in pjmedia.com/ /what-are-obamas-rules-of-engagement-in-damascus/Cached Jul 11, 2011 What are Obamas Rules of Engagement in Damascus? Professor William Jacobson wants to know and so do I. He notes the U.S. did not repel 6. BackyardConservative: Obamas Afghan Rules of Engagement backyardconservative.blogspot.com/ /obamas-afghan-rules-of-enga Cached - Similar Dec 2, 2009 Obamas Afghan Rules of Engagement. *No night or surprise searches. *Villagers have to be warned prior to searches. *ANA or ANP must 7. Obamas Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Costing Our Troops www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335891/postsCached - Similar Sep 9, 2009 Obamas rules of engagement are a return to micromanagement of a Jimmie Carter, established really stupid rules of engagement for our 8. Obamas Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are killing troops freedomist.com/ /obamas-rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan-are-k Cached Jun 24, 2010 The murder of American Soldiers by political correctness. 9. ROE Rules Of Engagement Obama Sentences American Troops To www.nowpublic.com/ /roe-rules-engagement-obama-sentences-ame Cached - Similar Aug 26, 2010 ROE Rules Of Engagement Obama Sentences American Troops To Death.
Serious subject. Very old links, mostly from rather suspect sources. Do you have an opinion or a suggestion?
Actually, I only looked at the first one and shrugged. That has been pretty much SOP for as long as I can remember. And I see absolutely nothing new or earth-shattering in the RoE that was posted. Pretty much everything listed is just good old common sense. No night or surprise searches Why would we search at night, we are not the Gestapo after all. And night is among the worst times to search, your vision is reduced and ambush against you is easier. Villagers are to be warned prior to searches Once again, why not? Not all villagers are terrorists, so should not be treated as such. Searches are essentially a law enforcement function, not a military one. Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches As they should, it is their country. We are operating on their behalf, they are not operating on ours. U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first This is typical RoE and "Authorization of Deadly Force", the same one I learned almost 30 years ago. Nothing special here, move along please. U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present Same as above. When I was guarding a Navy Ammo Depot in the early 1980's, I could not shoot either if there were civilians present (with the exception that if the incident involved the attempted theft or detonation of a nuke - then a bus load of nuns and orphans would not have stopped us from cutting loose). We are trying to protect the people of Afghanistan, not mow them down with indiscriminate fire. Only women can search women Once again, so what? Do you want to have more people killed in the riots that would be sure to start if men search women? Heck, you would have riots here in the US if men searched women as part of a security or law enforcement role. Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are. Notice, it says "fire upon", not "detain". And guess what? If they are walking away, wanna bet we want to detain them and not just "blow them away"? Capturing the people that place IEDs is a goldmine of intelligence information. So simply firing at them is a very-very-very stupid thing to do. The funniest thing about all of this to me SFJEFF is that I actually pretty much agree 100% with that RoE as posted by the creator of this thread. And I see absolutely nothing that violates common sense, rules of land warfare, or anything that would get people to get killed in the Operations Tempo we are currently in. However, it does show me once again how little most people really seem to understand the military and those in it.
Oh I think in the case of the poster, it had nothing to do with understanding military or not, its intent was purely political. But thanks for your analysis- I certainly don't have your experience- but I remember reading about our TOE in Afghanistan and certainly it seemed to make sense to me as an outsider.
Lives of civilians should always be protected over lives of soldiers no matter what country they are from.
I think the problem is as old as warfare. Especially when the enemy figures out the rules, and how to exploit them. I do have complete sympathy for the soldiers who have to deal with this. But the upside is many of these soldiers don't have to deal with the emotional shock of accidentally killing innocent civilians
Oh, I am well aware that it was entirely politically motivated. Look at the almost pathological obsession with President Obama and that is obvious. Much like the kinds of attacks we saw on President Bush a few years ago. I simply hate seeing something as basic as the ROE and see it turned into some kind of political attack. This individual cares nothing for the military, it is just a convenient tool to use to attack the President. Myself, I am largely apolitical when it comes to such things. And this is why I hate seeing the military used as a way to do political attacks, no matter what party it is aimed at. I will deflate a "mad dog conservative" attacking liberals as fast as I will deflate a "mad dog liberal" attacking conservatives. I only want accuracy, not any kind of political agenda. This individual is making a mistake all to many people have however. He is completely confusing the ROE in a war environment with the ROE in an anti-insurgent environment. When the military first enters a country, that is an invasion, and anybody even remotely threatening is the enemy to be dealt with accordingly. However, when a new government forms and we are supporting it, then the people not actively fighting us are our allies and people who we are supposed to protect. Running around like Rambo or John Wayne and blowing away everybody you are trying to protect is wrong, stupid and criminal. And under only a very few circumstances could I ever understand shooting into civilians in Afghanistan today. Say maybe if a truck packed with explosives was heading at a school or mosque. Then the risk of civilian casualties would be lower then the casualties when the truck exploded. But other then situations like that, shooting into civilians is and should be wrong.
I agree- and I didn't confront those attacks as vigorously as I should have. I find these mindless attacks on every single thing a President does- regardless of what it is- to be a diservice to any discussion. Running around like Rambo or John Wayne and blowing away everybody you are trying to protect is wrong, stupid and criminal. [/QUOTE] Yet far too many people think that is the answer- that or just sending bombers everytime we are in disagreement with a country. Always appreciate your comments.
