Petraeus - Re-visiting NATO ROE in Afghanistan

[vonGarvin]

From here

WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he would take a new look at the rules governing the use of heavy firepower in the Afghan war, which have cut down on United States airstrikes and civilian casualties but have been bitterly criticized by American forces who say they have made the fight more dangerous.

General Petraeus said he would look anew at the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
Calling the protection of his troops a “moral imperative,” General Petraeus signalled in his Senate confirmation hearing to take command in Afghanistan what could be his first significant shift in policy since President Obama last week fired the top commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
The Senate Armed Services Committee later voted to approve General Petraeus and referred his nomination to the full Senate, which was expected to confirm him as early as Tuesday evening.

“I want to assure the mothers and fathers of those fighting in Afghanistan that I see it as a moral imperative to bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform,” General Petraeus said. “Those on the ground must have all the support they need when they are in a tough situation.”

Saying that he had consulted the Afghan leadership on the need to adjust course and that they agreed with his view, he added: “I mention this because I am keenly aware of concerns by some of our troopers on the ground about the application of our rules of engagement and the tactical directive. They should know that I will look very hard at this issue.”

More on link.

 

[tomahawk6]

I have been very critical of the ROE's that McChrystal implemented. Its like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

 

[Ralph]

I don't know how deep of a thread we can have with OPSEC hanging over our heads, but Tomahawk - can you explain further? I found that national and ISAF ROEs were liberal enough to allow all intelligent reactions...whether those with the final say always agreed that a certain effect was needed is a different story...but that's the TOC's, not a four-star's call...

 

[SeanNewman]

Ralph,

I am completely with you on this one.  If some enemy dude is doing something on the side of the road, the friendly commander goes through a checklist of criteria that must be met, and the vast majority of the time those are met the missile gets fired and he gets killed.

I was a liaison with the Americans twice on my tour but never actually deployed with them on the op so it's hard to say what ROEs they are used to, but I definitely got the impression that they were used to not having to go through any sort of checklist. 

All the griping about McCrystal seems to be people saying "If I'm on the ground and want a bomb I better damn-well get a bomb", without any potential consideration for a sober second thought or collateral damage.

Let us not forget that we are there as Karzai's guests, and we must play by his rules.  Once we start conducting ops how we want and not how the host nation wants, we become occupiers and not helpers of the GIRA.  These are Karzai's criteria more so than ISAF's, and they are in place because when there is no sober second thought we end up killing far too many people who don't deserve it (as in 2007 when we killed more LNs than the Insurgents did).

 

[Drift Pin]

Let us not forget that we are there as Karzai's guests, and we must play by his rules.  Once we start conducting ops how we want and not how the host nation wants, we become occupiers and not helpers of the GIRA.  These are Karzai's criteria more so than ISAF's, and they are in place because when there is no sober second thought we end up killing far too many people who don't deserve it (as in 2007 when we killed more LNs than the Insurgents did).
[/quote]

Really ?  We are his guests ? wow

All this time I was thinking we were fighting a war against terrorists or something.  On my last count there are many soldiers giving their lives to defend Karzai's country.  If he doesn't like how we conduct business perhaps its time he took the defending of his  country into his own hands.
Civilian casualties are very unfortunate, but it does happen. If we do everything in our power to minimize civilian lives lost I know I can sleep at night.  As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it. 

 

[57Chevy]

Drift Pin 
    What petamocto said is perfectly right. If your idea of fighting terrorists/terrorism and
killing or otherwise maiming all sorts of civilians, including women and children in the meantime,
then there would be no difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys", then surely, Karzai would expulse the whole of the ISAF. I would not hesitate to do so.
    I realize that the terrorists know of those rules and try to use it in their favor, which makes for much longer firefights, but half the battle is already won when you gain the support of the civilian population. There will always be the unfortunate ratio of civilian casualties under any rules of engagement, but dropping bombs on civilian targets to eliminate a handfull of terrorists is an outright crime. Furthermore, I don't think Canadians would stand behind such action.
    I sleep well at night, and I consider our fallen soldiers as heros because of that fact.
Pro Patria

 

[SeanNewman]

... As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it.

In a war, yes.  But we aren't at war with Afghanistan; we are assisting them as part of a UN-supported mandate in a counter-insurgency.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for killing bad guys when required, but there is a difference between dropping a bomb when you're only going to kill bad guys and dropping a bomb when you're going to kill everyone.

 

[vonGarvin]

But we aren't at war with Afghanistan; we are assisting them as part of a UN-supported mandate in a counter-insurgency.

Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We are at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.

This pussy-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"


Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place:

 

[SeanNewman]

...We are at war.

...If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever...
Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place...

We're not at war.  We're conducting combat operations, but Canada hasn't declared war on anyone.  You of all people should understand that you can have a war with no shots fired, and you can be on a peacekeeping operation with all-out combat.

The attitude of dropping bombs without killing the locals will be responsible for more us of getting killed in the long run, which is why McCrystal was so against it in the first place.

Yes, it is true in your example that Pte Bloggins may get killed if we don't immediately drop the bomb, but it's also true that all it takes is for us to get it wrong once and hit the wrong group of people.  Now we have turned the population against us and instead of 1,000 insurgents who want to kill us it's now 30,000,000 Afghans who want to kill us.  And instead of Pte Bloggins getting killed it's the entire battalion getting killed.

Also, you attitude that anyone near them must also be guilty is also right-out-to-lunch and borderline irresponsible for a leader to post when young impresionable minds may be reading it.  Afghans by nature are curious the same way innocent people in Toronto last week are curious.  I have seen it myself with IEDs going off 100m from me, and us shooting back with tanks and LAVs, and Joe Average Afghans just going on about their business tending to their farm like nothing is happening.  Those people don't deserve to get murdered, thank you.

 

[vonGarvin]

 

[Altair]

Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We are at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.

This *****-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"


Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place:

i was taught not to think like that at basic.

 

[SeanNewman]

TV,

I am forced to assume that your account has been infiltrated or being controlled by someone in Pakistan.

Or you're on leave and very drunk  ;D

Probably "B".

 

[GAP]

Military Quote
Quote #1237 of 1546:

It is customary in the democratic countries to deplore expenditures on armaments as conflicting with the requirements of social services. There is a tendency to forget that the most important social service a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free.

- Air Chief Marshal Sir John Slessor

 

[vonGarvin]

i was taught not to think like that at basic.

They teach you how to think at basic now?  :

 

[Altair]

They teach you how to think at basic now?  :

...too soon buddy.

 

[Rogo]

Would it not be more accurate to say that Canada is at war by entering a conflict zone with its allies who have declared a "war on terrorism"? I do feel that officially or not that Canada should be treating this as a war but war does not justify civ casualties.  It doesn't matter if you are at war with a nation or not to me but if there is an effective way of killing the "bad guys" and not blowing up an apartment building then that option should be explored.


That being said when a platoon is say pinned down from a school and there is no safe way to escape, sorry but I think everyone will agree that the school will have to go bye bye.   

 

[57Chevy]

TV,
I am forced to assume that your account has been infiltrated or being controlled by someone in Pakistan.
Or you're on leave and very drunk  ;D
Probably "B".

In this case........... "B" can mean both  ;D

 

[57Chevy]

pinned down from a school and there is no safe way to escape, sorry but I think everyone will agree that the school will have to go bye bye. 

Sorry to say Rogo, but the school doesn't go bye-bye, especially if it's full of innocent little children. That so happens to be the time when you must make a choice, you either seek the un-safe way to escape, or you fight to the last breath. And, if you were under my command, it would be the latter.

 

[Teeps74]

Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We are at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.

This *****-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"


Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place:

"Kill 'em all and let god sort them out!" eh?

Christ almighty. For the love of god, get this through your overly simplistic skull. It is not as simple as killing everybody who might be a sympathizer. Such an attitude only creates more terrorists (which I suppose to some would be a good thing, as more people to kill the better right?).

This is asymmetric warfare. It is not easy. "Kill 'em all" has proven throughout history to not work at all.

ETA: Cultural structures lose their protection once military action takes place in or around them. By international law, we are not the only ones who are supposed to be trying to take care of them... So if some terrorist apostate Talidouche decides to shoot at me from inside a mosque, there is no legal reason why I can not shoot back. I just can not level the GR to get said bad guy.

 

[vonGarvin]

Sorry to say Rogo, but the school doesn't go bye-bye, especially if it's full of innocent little children. That so happens to be the time when you must make a choice, you either seek the un-safe way to escape, or you fight to the last breath. And, if you were under my command, it would be the latter.

*sigh*
A school full of kids, women, nuns, orphans, etc.  Got it. 
Simple, take cover, take well-aimed shots, and then cordon the place off, treat as a hostage-taking scene, and starve the bastards out.  Once they start tossing bodies of 6 year old boys out the windows, then what?