How Changing The Rules Of Engagment In Afghanistan Is Killing Our Troops And Making Us Lose The War

A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle drops 2,000-pound munitions on a cave in eastern Afghanistan, Nov. 26, 2009. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller

How The Afghanistan Air War Got Stuck In The Sky -- The Danger Room

For the first eight years of the war in Afghanistan, America and its allies relied heavily on air power to keep militants in check. Then, in July, top U.S. commander General Stanley McChrystal issued tough new guidelines that made it infinitely harder to call in a strike from the sky. The idea was to eliminate the civilian casualties that were alienating the Afghan population. But the effect of the new rules has been to make life much more dangerous for the U.S. troops on the ground there. With a single stroke, McChrystal not only took America’s biggest technological advantage in the war off the table. In the name of a more humane air war, he all-but-eliminated the tools and processes most likely to keep air strikes from killing innocents.

Read more ....

Update: The Phrase That’s Screwing Up the Afghan Air War -- The Danger Room

My Comment: The Danger Room covered this story in July .... I guess this story is a followup.

The Danger Room is not the first to point out how changing the rules of engagement has crippled U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. McClatchy News Services covered this in September, when a number of U.S. forces were pinned down by fire, but were told that because civilians were nearby (actually helping the enemy), air and artillery support could not be used. The Captain's Journal has also covered (on numerous occasions) how changing the ROEs has resulted in U.S. casualties.

But we are not the only ones who have these insane rules of engagement ... the British are even worse.