NATO: Too Many Restrictions on Foreign Forces in AFG
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
not quite. It's more like "What can we do to appear to partake in the effort, in order not to lose the US's protection, while simultaneously contributing as little to the actual effort as possible, so we can continue to bad-mouth the US at every opportunity, while claiming to being doing our part".milnewstbay said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The overriding ROE are always the ones set by your national chain of command, not the ones set by NATO, UN, etc. Although we have enjoyed pretty good ROEs for most ops in the last decade or so (with a few notable exceptions), don't forget that the ideas of being expeditionary, and of going to dangerous places where you will probably have to kill somebody; are unfamiliar and extremely unpopular ideas in some countries: Japan comes to mind. My sense in dealing with the Germans in ISAF VI was that while they were basically good soldiers, they were extremely risk averse, to the point of being of limited use in some situations. This was, I think, a reflection of their ROEs.
Unfortunately, (IMHO) these weak ROEs are based in the naive hope that somehow NATO troops will not be targeted if they are not "aggressive" (like those nasty US, UK and Cdns). Thus, the government will be able to avoid awkward and unpleasant explanations of deaths in Afghanistan. The Germans in particular know that this is sheer nonsense. In my opinion, the result of these wek ROEs is either:
somebody else's troops will carry the load when things get bad; or
there may be nobody ready to deal effectively with the Taleban and friends, unless some of those "nasty" troops happen to be in the vicinity.
IMHO the problem is that the govts of some of these troop contrinuting nations are caught between trying to stay on good terms with the US by being seen to "do something" on the one hand, and their national public opinion on the other hand. Going too far towards the former could cause them to lose the latter, and end up out of power. (Not a completely unfamiliar situation in Canada...)
I guess the best that can be said for these nations is that they are doing work in Kabul that otherwise we might have to shoulder.
Cheers
Unfortunately, (IMHO) these weak ROEs are based in the naive hope that somehow NATO troops will not be targeted if they are not "aggressive" (like those nasty US, UK and Cdns). Thus, the government will be able to avoid awkward and unpleasant explanations of deaths in Afghanistan. The Germans in particular know that this is sheer nonsense. In my opinion, the result of these wek ROEs is either:
somebody else's troops will carry the load when things get bad; or
there may be nobody ready to deal effectively with the Taleban and friends, unless some of those "nasty" troops happen to be in the vicinity.
IMHO the problem is that the govts of some of these troop contrinuting nations are caught between trying to stay on good terms with the US by being seen to "do something" on the one hand, and their national public opinion on the other hand. Going too far towards the former could cause them to lose the latter, and end up out of power. (Not a completely unfamiliar situation in Canada...)
I guess the best that can be said for these nations is that they are doing work in Kabul that otherwise we might have to shoulder.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I'll chime in with this: we're talking apples and oranges here.
ROE are different than national caveats.
ROE are applicable to engagements and define how soldiers employ force. Caveats, which are what we're talking about here, are political restrictions on where, when and under which command a nation's forces can be employed. National caveats may read something like this:
Operations within PD 12 only. Use of deadly force restricted to self-defence. May not be used for crowd control operations.
When planning operations, we would have a huge list of the caveats for each country. Some, like the US and UK, had none. Others had entire paragraphs, with incredible detail. Force composition was essentially determined by which caveats were applicable. A nation may grant very robust ROE, but direct extremely restrictive caveats. One nation would only permit its helicopters to carry soldiers of a certain nationality, for instance, or impose a geographical restriction. This has the effect of virtually guaranteeing that its forces wouldn't become engaged in "unpleasant" operations. Often, we'd say to hell with it and rely on the usual suspects to undertake difficult operations rather than bothering to go through the trouble of figuring out who was "available".
ROE are different than national caveats.
ROE are applicable to engagements and define how soldiers employ force. Caveats, which are what we're talking about here, are political restrictions on where, when and under which command a nation's forces can be employed. National caveats may read something like this:
Operations within PD 12 only. Use of deadly force restricted to self-defence. May not be used for crowd control operations.
When planning operations, we would have a huge list of the caveats for each country. Some, like the US and UK, had none. Others had entire paragraphs, with incredible detail. Force composition was essentially determined by which caveats were applicable. A nation may grant very robust ROE, but direct extremely restrictive caveats. One nation would only permit its helicopters to carry soldiers of a certain nationality, for instance, or impose a geographical restriction. This has the effect of virtually guaranteeing that its forces wouldn't become engaged in "unpleasant" operations. Often, we'd say to hell with it and rely on the usual suspects to undertake difficult operations rather than bothering to go through the trouble of figuring out who was "available".
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
Teddy Ruxpin said:
Is the CF a "usual suspect?" I am somewhat curious since I'm pretty sure this is the very claim which is being disputed at political level [i.e. is there some disagreement as to what national caveats were in place on or about January 21, 2006 and have they been modified since January 22?].
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The actual caveats are an OPSEC issue, so I won't get into them further. Suffice it to say that Canadian caveats weren't an operational issue (at all) when I was there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Well, let's not be too hasty. None of us know what the Dutch caveats really are. As stated above, the Dutch Apaches were quite highly thought of...
I believe that the initial story was referring to all countries that have directed extremely restrictive caveats in an effort to avoid operations - an accusation that can apply to a fairly wide variety of European and non-European contingents.
I believe that the initial story was referring to all countries that have directed extremely restrictive caveats in an effort to avoid operations - an accusation that can apply to a fairly wide variety of European and non-European contingents.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Apropos to nothing, I would like to mention here that the ROEs imposed upon any nation's military by their respective governments are NOT necessarily reflective of the quality of troops deployed.
We in Canada have had the experience of overly restrictive ROEs, imposed by politicians who didn't know better (or didn't care). It is a most demoralizing situation for the soldiers involved. I would submit that other nations suffer the same mindset from time to time.
Just because a national government restricts what its' respective troops may engage in does not mean those troops are not pulling their weight to the best of their (legal) ability. In my experience, most soldiers are in some state of disagreement with their respective politicians.
For the record, I've served with British, Aussie, Kiwi, Czech, Dutch, German, American, Finnish, Swedish, French, Danish, Romanian, Belgian, Pakistani, Malaysian, Irish, Indian, Spanish, Argentian, Brazilian, and many other nations' troops (which unnamed nationalities are unimportant and left unmentioned only for space and failing memory considerations - no slight is intended at all). I have found that, for the most part, soldiers are soldiers - despite their respective nationality. They are all (in my experience) "can do" and "gung ho" - and they bristle when their home nations' government restricts their actions. That restriction, however, is the essence of democracy - democratic armies don't get to do what they KNOW needs to be done - they get to do what their duly elected government TELLS them to do.
As I said at the beginning - this post is apropos to nothing, I would just hate to see this thread degenerate into "national character bashing" - not that it has, just that I would hate to see it do so.
We in Canada have had the experience of overly restrictive ROEs, imposed by politicians who didn't know better (or didn't care). It is a most demoralizing situation for the soldiers involved. I would submit that other nations suffer the same mindset from time to time.
Just because a national government restricts what its' respective troops may engage in does not mean those troops are not pulling their weight to the best of their (legal) ability. In my experience, most soldiers are in some state of disagreement with their respective politicians.
For the record, I've served with British, Aussie, Kiwi, Czech, Dutch, German, American, Finnish, Swedish, French, Danish, Romanian, Belgian, Pakistani, Malaysian, Irish, Indian, Spanish, Argentian, Brazilian, and many other nations' troops (which unnamed nationalities are unimportant and left unmentioned only for space and failing memory considerations - no slight is intended at all). I have found that, for the most part, soldiers are soldiers - despite their respective nationality. They are all (in my experience) "can do" and "gung ho" - and they bristle when their home nations' government restricts their actions. That restriction, however, is the essence of democracy - democratic armies don't get to do what they KNOW needs to be done - they get to do what their duly elected government TELLS them to do.
As I said at the beginning - this post is apropos to nothing, I would just hate to see this thread degenerate into "national character bashing" - not that it has, just that I would hate to see it do so.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Teddy: you are quite right-I was not being clear about ROE vs caveats. As you will recall, ISAF had VERY robust "Levels of Force" (=ROE) on paper but they were utterly hamstrung by national caveats.
Roy Harding: I have seen a few of the world's armies too, and I wish I could be as charitable as you. While I agree that we should not name names, some of them, I'm sorry to say, were rubbish, regardless of what their ROEs/caveats/etc might have been. (And, to be fair, some surprised me.) Sometimes it's a reflection of the military culture: some armies are just not designed for operations that require initiative and autonomy at the lower levels. Other forces have no sense of professionalism amongst their officers, such that ethical behaviour or leadership by example are relatively rare, with predictable results on their troops' performance. I will be the very first to admit that we have, in the past, seen examples of this kind of behaviour in deployed Canadian troops, but we clearly recognized these as aberrations contrary to our ethos and traditions and have worked hard to deal with them since then.
Cheers
Roy Harding: I have seen a few of the world's armies too, and I wish I could be as charitable as you. While I agree that we should not name names, some of them, I'm sorry to say, were rubbish, regardless of what their ROEs/caveats/etc might have been. (And, to be fair, some surprised me.) Sometimes it's a reflection of the military culture: some armies are just not designed for operations that require initiative and autonomy at the lower levels. Other forces have no sense of professionalism amongst their officers, such that ethical behaviour or leadership by example are relatively rare, with predictable results on their troops' performance. I will be the very first to admit that we have, in the past, seen examples of this kind of behaviour in deployed Canadian troops, but we clearly recognized these as aberrations contrary to our ethos and traditions and have worked hard to deal with them since then.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
ROE article from Strategypage. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20060908.aspx
September 8, 2006: NATO commanders in Afghanistan are not happy with all the strings attached to their authority by politicians back home. The ROE (Rules of Engagement) for NATO troops contain over seventy restrictions on how the NATO commander may use troops assigned to him. Most of these have to do with where national contingents can be moved, and how much they can be exposed to danger.
In the last six weeks, the NATO force of 20,000 troops has suffered 38 dead, but has killed about twenty times as many Taliban fighters. The NATO troops are good at what they do, but they could do more, and at less risk to themselves, if the NATO commanders had fewer strings attached to who can be used where and how. That would seem impossible, given that three dozen NATO nations have troops in Afghanistan. But it's only the major contributors of combat forces that NATO commanders are really worried about. Of particular concern is the German contingent of nearly 2,000 troops. Current ROE restricts the German troops to Kabul.
By going public with complaints about the ROE problem, the NATO commanders are setting up the politicians back home to take the heat for any casualties in Afghanistan. It also puts pressure on the politicians to ease up on the ROEs, which were created mainly to win political points back home.
September 8, 2006: NATO commanders in Afghanistan are not happy with all the strings attached to their authority by politicians back home. The ROE (Rules of Engagement) for NATO troops contain over seventy restrictions on how the NATO commander may use troops assigned to him. Most of these have to do with where national contingents can be moved, and how much they can be exposed to danger.
In the last six weeks, the NATO force of 20,000 troops has suffered 38 dead, but has killed about twenty times as many Taliban fighters. The NATO troops are good at what they do, but they could do more, and at less risk to themselves, if the NATO commanders had fewer strings attached to who can be used where and how. That would seem impossible, given that three dozen NATO nations have troops in Afghanistan. But it's only the major contributors of combat forces that NATO commanders are really worried about. Of particular concern is the German contingent of nearly 2,000 troops. Current ROE restricts the German troops to Kabul.
By going public with complaints about the ROE problem, the NATO commanders are setting up the politicians back home to take the heat for any casualties in Afghanistan. It also puts pressure on the politicians to ease up on the ROEs, which were created mainly to win political points back home.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I seem to remember a certain country deploying 2 fighter Sqns to the Gulf during rd 1 of the Gulf War, with the restrictions that they will not be used out side of CAP missions with in Saudia or Bahrainian airspace. This was lifted towards the end of the war, after the majority of fighting was concluded.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Roy Harding said:
Well said. While I have worked with some troops who were floppers from other nations, I have encountered a few Canadian floppers as well. Insulting the character of a nation (or it's soldiers) is offensive and not something we as Canadians appreciated when we found ourselves in similar situations and the brunt of similar comments. Anyone remember the vitriol sent our way for bowing out of Iraq?
EDIT - That is not to say that it wouldn't be great if the caveats attached to currently deployed troops were lifted or relatively free for new arrivals. Simply that it is a function of democracy.... which is one thing we are supposedly fighting for.
Cheers,
Mike
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
Well, from what I saw on ctv tonight, some country with at leat 5 Pzh 2000 in theatre has decided to give a hand in the south, they seem to be directly supporting Canadian troops.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Teddy, pbi, t6 and the other usual suspects... once again a very informative thread. Great stuff, thanks.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
First of all, thanks to all of you for the kind words.
Secondly, yes, we send 3 (not 5) PH-2000 155mm SP to Afghanistan. They were supposed to provide our two camps in Uruzgan with some direct long range heavy firepower around the bases in case allied troops would come under fire if friendly aircraft weren't nearby for direct fire support or wouldn't be enough.
It was decided last week that they won't be going to our bases, but will stay in Kandahar to support the Canadian and other troops taking part in Medusa.
Link: http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2006/09/20060905_pzh.aspx (soory, guys .. in Dutch. I can translate it for you if you really want it)
A company of Dutch troops has also been deployed from Uruzgan to a Canadian base, Martello, to free up troops for the Canadians, so they could use those for Medusa. One or two days after they arrived and took over positions they were attacked by an estimated 100+ taliban and drove them off, no casualties on our own side, luckily.
Link: http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2006/09/20060905_martello.aspx (again, same as above, in Dutch, willing to translate if asked)
Dutch F-16's and Apaches (and I would also think Chinooks, knowing the shortage of medium transport heli's in the region) were also involved in fire support missions in Kandahar.
As for the camouflage, well it seems that most troops are wearing olive green t-shirts under there desert camouflage uniforms, some support and logistics troops DO have olive coloured camouflage clothing, but all the manouevre (infantry, cavalry, artillery, etc) are wearing desert-like camouflage unforms.
Here's a link with a small dia-section, just press the play button:
http://www.rtl.nl/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/missie_uruzgan.xml
Regards,
Mourning 8)
Secondly, yes, we send 3 (not 5) PH-2000 155mm SP to Afghanistan. They were supposed to provide our two camps in Uruzgan with some direct long range heavy firepower around the bases in case allied troops would come under fire if friendly aircraft weren't nearby for direct fire support or wouldn't be enough.
It was decided last week that they won't be going to our bases, but will stay in Kandahar to support the Canadian and other troops taking part in Medusa.
Link: http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2006/09/20060905_pzh.aspx (soory, guys .. in Dutch. I can translate it for you if you really want it)
A company of Dutch troops has also been deployed from Uruzgan to a Canadian base, Martello, to free up troops for the Canadians, so they could use those for Medusa. One or two days after they arrived and took over positions they were attacked by an estimated 100+ taliban and drove them off, no casualties on our own side, luckily.
Link: http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2006/09/20060905_martello.aspx (again, same as above, in Dutch, willing to translate if asked)
Dutch F-16's and Apaches (and I would also think Chinooks, knowing the shortage of medium transport heli's in the region) were also involved in fire support missions in Kandahar.
As for the camouflage, well it seems that most troops are wearing olive green t-shirts under there desert camouflage uniforms, some support and logistics troops DO have olive coloured camouflage clothing, but all the manouevre (infantry, cavalry, artillery, etc) are wearing desert-like camouflage unforms.
Here's a link with a small dia-section, just press the play button:
http://www.rtl.nl/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/missie_uruzgan.xml
Regards,
Mourning 8)
Similar threads
