Petraeus - Re-visiting NATO ROE in Afghanistan

[vonGarvin]

"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.

It's worked for us in the past.  I'm not saying "kill them all, let God sort them out", and my skull may be overly simplistic; however, my logic isn't. 

And if by killing one we create ten, there must be millions of the little devils by now, no?  :

I'm not saying carpet bombing, I was clear on that.  I am saying that once they throw down the gauntlet in a direct fire attack, we ought not to be pulling punches.  If they hide behind the innocents, then we wait.  We watch and wait with extreme patience.  And then we shoot them in the face.  Repeatedly.

I mean, not bothering about collateral damage seems to be working for the other side, no?

 

[Teeps74]

It's worked for us in the past.  I'm not saying "kill them all, let God sort them out", and my skull may be overly simplistic; however, my logic isn't. 

And if by killing one we create ten, there must be millions of the little devils by now, no?  :

I'm not saying carpet bombing, I was clear on that.  I am saying that once they throw down the gauntlet in a direct fire attack, we ought not to be pulling punches.  If they hide behind the innocents, then we wait.  We watch and wait with extreme patience.  And then we shoot them in the face.  Repeatedly.

I mean, not bothering about collateral damage seems to be working for the other side, no?

Make no mistake, I am all for shooting the bad guys in the face.

The pictures you put up are WW2 if I am not mistaken... Different type of warfare.

Most of the civilians around the talidouche are not their by choice. The bad guys very frequently murder civilians to make a point and gain acceptance. Such a tactic would not work on us currently, but then, we have not survived 30+ years of constant warfare here. Afghans are very much in survival mode now, they, the rural Afghan we most likely deal with, are not thinking further beyond the next hour, as frankly they do not know if they will be alive then.

Sometimes collateral damage is necessary, and it sucks.

We all take this subject very seriously, as we all have lost brothers and sisters in this dirty little war. My singular hope is that when we leave, we do not have to go back there in a combat role... Alas, I am not sure that is possible anymore.

 

[Rogo]

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.

Well I am not saying that these are schools full of little children.  Infact I think it is fair to assume that children do not stay in schools while there is a firefight going on. 

I could easily be wrong but I am not condoning dropping bombs on children.  That last little bit was unnecessary on your part let's not try to get personal here.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The more we restrict the rules of engagement the more civilians we save and the more the enemy takes advatage of it and kills us.

Rogo, these people will think nothing of using children as human shields.  If we kill children while trying to kill them then they gain a vioctory because it gets splashed on the news that western soldiers killed children. It's pretty much an SOP for them to surround themselves with innocent bystanders.  Suddam Hussain did the same with his anti-aircraft equipment and shit during the gulf war.  Concept being to get the AA gun you were taking out a school too.

 

[57Chevy]

*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?

All this being a hypothetical situation.....I can only give you a hypothetical answer.
But I suppose, if this was in fact the case, it would be considered a Charlie Foxtrot. So, there would only be two things left to do....."FIDO" (f*** It, Drive On), and make an attempt to clear the building,
or withdraw.

Rogo, The "you" in this case did not mean specifically youself....no personal attack intended.

 

[Teeps74]

The more we restrict the rules of engagement the more civilians we save and the more the enemy takes advatage of it and kills us.

Rogo, these people will think nothing of using children as human shields.  If we kill children while trying to kill them then they gain a vioctory because it gets splashed on the news that western soldiers killed children. It's pretty much an SOP for them to surround themselves with innocent bystanders.  Suddam Hussain did the same with his anti-aircraft equipment and crap during the gulf war.  Concept being to get the AA gun you were taking out a school too.

This war is being actively fought on two fronts.

The obvious one we all get in Afghanistan, where we are winning our battles.

The second front is right here in Canada, where most of us are not even aware that we are fighting and losing. The bad guys want us to kill civilians, that is the reasoning behind suicide car bombs, and other suicide tactics... Such tactics have generally been of questionable effect to us over there, but every time some kid going too fast with his music up too loud get's killed for getting too close to a convoy, that is an informations operations win for the bad guys, because our press can NEVER be bothered to discuss the reason why we have to keep vehicles from closing with us.

The talidouche look to maximize civilian casualties at every turn. They do not care about Afghans, not one wit, because they know we will leave them to it. The talidouche do not have to win the war there, they only have to win the IO war here... And they are getting really good at it.

 

[Rogo]

So it seems the consensus is that neither here nor there is an adequate solution for ROEs.  You can't level the school, and I agree we shouldn't but then how do you provide security to ground forces without some support that may or may not cause civilian casualties.

I'm not trying to poke and prod people but I would like to hear people's opinions on solutions because to me neither one nor the other really works to a satisfactory level it would seem. (judging from people's posts here)


57 Chevy thank you for the note, I am a little happier to know that I would not be sent by you to clear out a school on my own hihi 

 

[SeanNewman]

Rogo,

The key difference is that in a War, the object is for your military to kill the other military, where as in COIN this is not generally possible so it becomes critical to get the population to kill the insurgency for you.

In a war, the population doesn't really matter that much (in comparison to COIN) because as per WW2 if some of them get killed while you're killing the enemy then so be it.  The population doesn't really have a say in whether or not you win or lose, and in fact it is often argued that if a country is really at war their population is probably part of the war effort as well (building tanks, etc).

However, in a COIN that line of thinking is disastrous because the people are the most critical part, and in a way you have to look at the enemy as the ones that don't matter.  While this works well in theory, obviously the reality is that for the soldier getting shot at in the short term, the enemy is pretty frickin' important and needs to be taken care of. 

That's why I get so p!ssed off when people say we're in a war in Afghanistan right now, because if that were the case it would be far easier than it is.  We have to do things that allow us to kill the enemy in the short term but still win the support of the people who will kill the insurgents in the long term.

If not, the insurgents win the population in case of a tie.

I have heard it said that compared to a peacekeeping operation, COIN is easy and a relief because you can at least kill people before they kill you, even if there are rules.  Likewise, in a way war is "easier" than COIN because there's potentially no remorse for your actions and you can use the force at your disposal (keeping in mind the laws of armed conflict that overkill is never allowed).

Another reason we are not at war is because 99% of Canadians' lives haven't changed one bit because of Afghanistan.  Unless someone in your family was killed in the towers, or someone in your family was killed in Afghanistan, the "war in terror" has had absolutely nil impact.  Nobody has been drafted, and no car factories have been taken over by the government to make LAVs.

 

[vonGarvin]

:spam:

 

[Haligonian]

I'm currently depoloyed as part of Stab A in Kandahar City as a Pl Comd so I'll have to be very careful with regards to OPSEC but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

Generally, we aren't held back by the ROE.  The ROE is very liberal.  Where limitations come in is in the use of indirect and air launched munitions against residential compounds. Having said this, self defence is paramount and there is no limitation on the use of munitions in the case of self defence, so the example of the pinned down platoon and the school full of children is moot.  If that platoon is genuinely pinned down (due to volume of fire or casualties sustained) and the only option in the entire battle space is to drop indirect or air launched munitions on to the target then that will be approved. Now if there is any other option for this platoon, such as withdrawal, support from another maneuver element, or less explosive means of fire support such as .50 cal from a Kiowa or cannon fire from an Apache then the indirect or other air launched munitions would be denied and these other means would have to be employed.

I believe it was Technoviking that said that the enemy does not care for civilian casualties and that us being overly concerned is a liability.  I'm going to have to disagree with this.  The Taliban currently employ a sophisticated IO (info ops) campaign targeted at Local Nationals and minimizing civilian casualties and blaming civcas on us is a major pillar of this campaign. This is why BDA (Battle Damage Assessments) have become so important so that we can confirm or deny when we have caused civcas and throw this back at the enemy when it was in fact them who caused it or have lied about our involvement.  This has happened numerous times during my tour and I assure you that minimization of civcas is a strategic issue for this war. When civcas does take place it becomes an immediate issue to Afghans on the street and ISAF forces are confronted with it daily on patrol.  A good example of this was when the American route clearance package shot up the bus with its MK 19 about 2 months ago.  It was not a fun few weeks on the west side of the city following that.

My final point relates to just how much firepower we need to bring to bear on the enemy. A single Canadian sect can carry an aweful lot firepower now a days that 99% of the time the enemy cannot compete with.  Between 2 x C9, 2 x M203, and 2-4 M72's were packing alot of destructive power.  Not including the platoon's assets and vehicles.  This is more than enough to deal with a few INS firing from a grape hut most of the time and will result in less collateral damage.  In addition, once contact has been broken you can patrol to the area you took contact from and inform the people in the area that any damage can be blamed on the Taliban for using civilian structures for military purposes, and then of course tell them they can prevent this from happening in the future by informing ISAF/ANSF about INS whereabouts. This is all done with an ANSF face. This, in my oppinion would be taking the more strategic approach than simply dropping a bomb and carrying on.

 

[vonGarvin]

I believe it was Technoviking that said that the enemy does not care for civilian casualties and that us being overly concerned is a
liability.  I'm going to have to disagree with this.  The Taliban currently employ a sophisticated IO (info ops) campaign targeted at
Local Nationals and minimizing civilian casualties and blaming civcas on us is a major pillar of this campaign.

I stand that they don't care; how they spin the results is entirely different.  In fact, if they could blow up a school full of nuns and orphans, they would if they could try to blame us for it.  That they spin it to blame us: got it.

Stay safe over there!

 

[SeanNewman]

Haligonian,

I greatly respect your contributions over there, and please keep up the good work.

FYI though, TechnoViking was the Kandahar Battle Group Chief Plans Officer last year so he's pretty up to speed on the ROE regulations.  And he knows a lot about Info Ops because he had the best Information Operations Officer of all time pushing IO Annexes to him.

 

[Teeps74]

Discussions like these, do help move the goal posts in favour of us. Very necessary for the entirety of the CF to be discussing these issues, as it will help make what it is that we are trying to do that much more clear.

Haligonian, take care of yourself, and your brothers and sisters in arms. We want you all back in one piece.

 

[Drift Pin]

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

I was not saying that we should kill "all sorts of civilians" actually.  maybe you should read what I posted once more. There is a big difference between accidentally killing someone innocent from calling a strike on a legit target and strategic bombing. It is an unfortunate result of war however.  Just like blue on blue situations, you can try to mitigate it as much as possible but it still happens.  That's just how it goes.  Would I give up what is most likely our greatest advantage in a fire fight because of it?  f*** no.

If you are in a firefight with an enemy who is in a fortified location and you have the option to bring heavy fire on that position then do it.  Yes, there are times when the odd civilian may be caught in the wrong place but....well...war is hell.

Would you rather send an Infantry section into that building to clear it knowing that some of them would not make it out again?  Or would you use the assets you have available  to you to do your job?  I know in my heart I would not trade the life of one of the soldiers fighting next to me for the life of a civilian who would see me dead in a heartbeat anyway.  Your milage may vary, but I have been down that road and have seen the results with my own two eyes. (as many others on this forum have I am sure)

Taking away our ability to call down heavy fire will mean more body bags filled with Canadian soldiers and quite honestly I would take any measure necessary to avoid that outcome.  Sure, the odd Civi might get whacked but lets face it, If they had their shit sorted out the ANA would be fighting the Taliban for themselves at this point and we wouldn't have to travel half way around the Goddammed world to do it for them.

Fighting a war requires sacrifice.  We have surely made enough of our own.  If Karzai  doesn't like the way we conduct business as a professional military he can feel free to enlighten us on how it should be done.  Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies, Nuff said.

 

[SeanNewman]

...Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies, Nuff said.

That's where you're wrong in the long-term, though.  I know what you mean in terms of "If we have it we should use it", but there is also the option of not pushing the button and everyone lives to fight another day.  If our soldiers are genuinely fixed then yes of course we need to strike hard to get them out, but these cases are relatively rare compared to the cases where someone thinks they see someone doing something bad so we want to drop a bomb on them (which ISAF/OEF has gotten wrong quite a few times).

Air (or Artillery, or whatever) strikes reduce short-term ramp ceremonies and are justified if the soldiers are fixed.

Air (or Artillery, or whatever) strikes cause long-term ramp ceremonies if we overuse them without ever thinking about the consequences of what happens when we get it wrong and turn the population itself into insurgents who want to fight us.

 

[Drift Pin]

...and turn the population itself into insurgents who want to fight us.

Wake up troop

  I have yet to meet a local who wouldn't smile to my face and stab me in the back as soon as I turned around.  You must have had a better tour than the rest of us because IMO, we will never, NEVER win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.  Half the ANA/ANP/camp workers/terps/locals are taliban and we all know it.  We choose to smile and ignore it even though its as obvious as the nose on your face.

If your only arguement against airstrikes/atillery strikes is winning of local hearts and minds, I fear we lost that battle as soon as we steped off the plane.

But I digress.....

 

[SeanNewman]

Wow, interesting statistics there you've come up with.  Quite the pessimist too because I've seen some ANA do some pretty brave stuff to kill bad guys.

It's not about making them love us (which granted would never happen) but not hating us enough to kill us, or at minimum giving them other employment opportunities than firing RPGs.

It's not the mission to get them to love us anyway, it's the mission to get them to love the ANSF.

And as far as I'm concerned, CF troops are in less danger if we're only fighting the insurgents and not every single Afghan.

Added: I now see that I've been hogging a bit of the posts on this thread, so I'll back off.  Sorry, a bit passionate about this.

 

[57Chevy]

Drift Pin
            My post was referring strictly to your initial statement," As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it." Of which I understand as being bombed to the ground without consideration for civilian lives. Proper use of military assets is always encouraged where the need is encountered. Overkill, as far as I'm concerned is not considered an asset but can/will create an undesirable effect in the civilian population toward coalition forces.
            Knowing that, and if overkill techniques are used in this type of war, then the taliban who
take no regard of civilian lives, will use that to their advantage, thus forcing the ultimate failure of coalition forces to obtain the desired end result......democracy. 

           

 

[GAP]

The closest anybody is going to get to democracy in Afghanistan is a feudal system....you can have all the votes you want, the that leopard isn't going to change its' spots...

 

[Drift Pin]

Ive seen some brave ANA as well.  It's the other half that worries me.  I am not a pessimist, nor an optimist. I would consider my self a realist actually.

Of course the view of the terrain is going to differ from the point of view of an officer over an NCO.  Politics is your world not mine. I am just the guy on the ground who has to deal with the decisions of people who apparently know better.  I bet you a cold beer that your view on airstrikes will change as soon as you are the one in need of such things. When your life is on the line.

I always believed the mission was to train the Afghans to fight on their own.  I don't care who loves who in the long run, but if you take away the commanders ability to use strikes the enemy will use it to their advantage. 

Since you have it all figured out, please enlighten me on the subject.  What should we do in the future?  How would we replace such a combat advantage? when we can't call down HE on an objective how do we get the job done without putting our own troops at unnecessary risk? Its real easy to point out the problems with something but its not so easy to come up with a solution.

Just curious