Thursday, January 14, 2016

Pentagon: Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Are Still Restricting U.S. Military Operations

Medical Evacuation - A UH-60 Black Hawk medical evacuation helicopter lands as U.S. Army paratroopers secure the area in Afghanistan's Ghazni province, July 23, 2012. The soldiers are assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team and the helicopter crew is assigned to the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade. The soldiers evacuated a wounded insurgent. U.S. Army photo by Capt. Thomas Cieslak

Eli Lake, Bloomberg: U.S. Forces Tied by Old Rules in Afghanistan


As the Afghanistan war grinds into its 15th year, many U.S. military officers are telling Congress their hands are tied to go after the enemy, particularly the Islamic State, which is building up its presence in the country despite fierce opposition from the Taliban.

Current and former U.S. military officials tell me that the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan is almost entirely focused on the re-emergence of al Qaeda and that strikes against Islamic State leaders are scarce.

Afghan news media reported one such strike over the weekend in the province of Nangarhar. In July U.S. airstrikes reportedly killed Hafez Saeed, an Islamic State leader in what the group has called its Khoresan Province. But U.S. officials tell me the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are highly restrictive.

"There are real restrictions about what they can do against the ISIS presence in Afghanistan," Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told me about the rules of engagement for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I can understand why the US military wants to loosen the rules of engagement in Afghanistan .... but this is why they have been implemented .... Top U.S. General In Afghanistan: Hospital Air Strike Was A Mistake. The White House is loathe to have such an occurrence from happening again .... unfortunately .... that means that the fight against Al Qaeda/Islamic state/the Taliban will suffer.

2 comments:

Jay Farquharson said...

WNU Editor,

Looser ROE and a huge troop presence didn't result in "victory" either.

The war in Afghanistan was lost at the first Loya Jurga, and all the bombs and troops in the world can no longer fix that.

B.Poster said...

If the goal is to make Afghanistan like the "west" or America, which it may have been at one time, then the war is indeed "lost" and was "lost" from the start. At least to do something like this would have required more troops, possibly in the millions, and a commitment lasting many decades. Beyond some rhetoric such attempts were never really made. Again, this goal has been largely abandoned assuming anyone really took that seriously anyway within the US government.

If the goal is to defeat a mortal threat to the US and make it impossible or at least more difficult to attack us such as the Taliban, ISIS, and other Islamic terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan are, then a change in the rules of engagement will probably be helpful but a change in overall tactics is probably needed as well.

With that said, if I were POTUS, I would want these troops deployed away from Afghanistan to positions along our borders and off of our coasts. Such deployments would have greater utility to America's defense needs than being in Afghanistan would seem to have.