U.S. Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Have Definitely Changed

U.S. airmen prepare a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone as it leaves on a mission at Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan March 9, 2016. REUTERS/Josh Smith

WNU Editor: I noticed the following claim in this report .... Official: US Drone Kills 26 Taliban in Eastern Afghanistan (VOA).

.... An Afghan official says two U.S. drone strikes this week hit a building where dozens of Taliban were meeting in southeastern province of Ghazni, killing 26 insurgents and wounding 22.

He says among those killed was a senior commander, known only as Aqhani, who ran the insurgency in Ghazni province. The first U.S. drone strike hit the building, the second struck an hour later after more Taliban had gathered at the scene.

The second airstrike that was initiated is what caught my eye. Usually when a U.S. airstrike of this type occurs, it is an intense attack lasting a few seconds/a minute .... and that is it. But in this case .... the second strike occurred an hour later when people were present helping those who were trapped or wounded. Talk about not only sending a message to the Taliban that going to the aid after an airstrike does not mean you are an immune from an airstrike, but it is also a message to the Taliban that the rules of engagement against them have definitely changed.

More Details Emerge On How Rules Of Engagement May Have Been Responsible For The Death Of 38 Soldiers In The 2011 Downing Of A Chinook Helicopter Gunship In Afghanistan

Sara Carter, CIRCA: A retired Air Force captain says Pentagon covered up real cause of deadly chopper crash

A decorated retired Air Force officer who witnessed one of the most deadly attacks on Navy SEALs in U.S. history is breaking her silence, saying the government covered up evidence detailing that the 2011 downing of a Chinook helicopter gunship that killed 38 fighters in Afghanistan could have been prevented had it not been for restrictions to the military's rules of engagement that were changed under the Obama administration.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Obama administration and many of the generals who were responsible for these rules of engagement are now gone. Expect more whistle-blowers stepping forward.

The Lawyers Are Now Dictating To U.S. Soldiers The 'When And How' They Can Use Their Weapons In Afghanistan

Afghan commandos prepared for an overnight mission at Kandahar Air Field on May 29, waiting for U.S. helicopters to carry them to an operation. The remaining American troops in Afghanistan provide assistance, but U.S. rules limit the circumstances in which they may fire on the Taliban. PHOTO: MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Wall Street Journal: Afghan War Rules Leave U.S. Troops Wondering When It’s OK to Shoot

U.S. is no longer at war with Taliban, so Special Forces remaining in Afghanistan have to weigh every situation to decide whether striking them is justified.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan—U.S. spy drones had no trouble spotting the Taliban fighters. There were more than 20 figures snaking through sparsely wooded hills, trying to outflank the Afghan government commandos in the village below.

In the starry darkness overhead, American helicopters loitered armed with precision-guided missiles, along with a flying gunship capable of drenching the area with cannon-fire. It would have been a hard shot to miss.

But before they could fire, the Americans knew they would have to get past the lawyers.

In the amorphous twilight of the Afghan war, it isn’t enough to draw a bead on the enemy. Before they shoot, U.S. troops have to navigate a tricky legal and political question: When is it OK for them to kill Taliban?

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The airstrike on a hospital in Kunduz last year changed everything .... and today's new rules of engagement are now needlessly killing a lot of people .... far more than what happened in Kunduz.

New U.S. Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan

ISIS have released propaganda videos from Afghanistan showing the training of jihadis and executions. Daily Mail

Reuters: Air strikes hit Islamic State in Afghanistan under new rules: U.S.

The United States has carried out 70 to 80 air strikes against Islamic State in Afghanistan in the three months since U.S. forces were given broader authority to target the militants, a U.S. military spokesman said on Thursday.

Before January, the U.S. military could only strike Islamic State in Afghanistan under narrow circumstances, such as for protection of troops.

Military spokesman Brigadier General Charles Cleveland said the air strikes had decreased the capacity of the group in Afghanistan, where fighters loyal to Islamic State have emerged to challenge the larger Afghan Taliban in pockets of the country.

Cleveland said about 70 to 80 percent of the air strikes between January and the end of March were in the eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This is interesting .... even former Taliban fighters are fearful of the Islamic State .... Afghanistan: Former Taliban fighters flee ISIS brutality (CNN).

More News On The U.S. War Against The Islamic State In Afghanistan

Nearly 40 ISIS loyalists killed in an airstrike in east of Afghanistan -- Khaama Press
The U.S. has launched more than 70 airstrikes this year against ISIS in Afghanistan -- Washington Post
General: ISIS in Afghanistan potentially an 'enormous' threat -- The Hill
U.S. scales back threat assessment for ISIS in Afghanistan -- Military Times

Departing Top General From Afghanistan Wanted To Change The Rules Of Engagement

Outgoing Commander of Resolute Support forces and United States forces in Afghanistan, U.S. Army General John Campbell, walks during a change of command ceremony in Resolute Support headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/RAHMAT GUL/POOL

Reuters: U.S. general sought greater powers in Afghanistan before exit

The U.S. general who until last week commanded the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan said on Friday he recommended broader scope for U.S. military activity as the country fends off a resilient Taliban insurgency.

Army General John Campbell declined to disclose the specific powers he requested from President Barack Obama's administration before he stepped down as part of a normal leadership transition. But he expressed a sense of urgency, "otherwise it's not going to impact" the war in 2016.

"I'm not going to get more people. So the only way that I can impact is potentially change some of the authorities we have. So authorities deal with: what you can strike, what you can’t strike, at what levels you can do train, advise, assist," Campbell told a group of reporters at the Pentagon.

"So I've asked for some modifications."

Read more ....

WNU Editor: It looks like Army General John Campbell wanted to change the rules of engagement .... but the White House refused his request.

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.

US Troops Are Now Fed Up With Their 'Insane' Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan

U.S. Marines provide security during a patrol near Patrol Base Boldak in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 30, 2014. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Zachery B. Martin

'I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy -- Breitbart

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

Read more ....

Update #1: Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan -- The Desert Review
Update #2: ‘I Didn’t Join to Be Sacrificed’: US Troop Deaths in Afghanistan Skyrocket Under Obama -- Townhall

My Comment: As I had mentioned in a previous post .... it is now open season on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. One more reason to leave that country ASAP.

Stricter Rules Of Engagement Are Killing U.S. Troops In Afghanistan

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Brett Cowles fires his M240B machine gun during unknown distance, live-fire training on Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Nov. 24, 2013. Cowles, a machine gunner, is assigned to India Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Corey Dabney

Shades of Vietnam: Spike In U.S. Troop Deaths Tied To Stricter Rules Of Engagement -- Washington Times

The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

Read more ....

Previous Post: Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan -- Washington Times

My Comment: Thank God U.S. and NATO forces are leaving .... as outlined in this report .... the new rules of engagement in Afghanistan will make it impossible to fight .... so why stay?

U.S. Troops Are Now Severely Limited By Rules Of Engagement To Conduct Military Operations In Afghanistan

Rules Of Engagement Limit The Actions Of U.S. Troops And Drones In Afghanistan -- Washington Times

Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists

The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.

Read more ....

My Comment: Time to leave Afghanistan. I repeat ... time to leave Afghanistan.

UK Troops Told In Afghanistan: 'Don't Shoot Unless You Are Shot At'

In the line of fire: British soldiers say a tactical change stopping them from firing first has left them at greater risk of death or injury while on patrol in Afghanistan

UK Troops Told: 'Don't Shoot Unless You Are Shot At... And Our Helmand Casualties Soar -- Daily Mail

* 11 UK soldiers gunned down in Helmand in past three months, compared to two in the same period last year
* Troops say they changed rules of engagement in response to U.S. efforts to cut civilian shootings

British soldiers in Afghanistan claim that new tactics are preventing them shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at themselves – resulting in an alarming rise in the number of casualties.

The troops say they have had to change their procedures as part of American-led efforts to cut down on the number of civilians being wounded, but the new approach has made them more vulnerable.

In the past three months, 11 British soldiers have been killed by enemy gunfire in Helmand province, compared with just two in the same period last year.

Read more ....

My Comment: Unbelievable. But this junior non-commissioned officer says it best ....

.... ‘When I arrived in Helmand, my officers said our tactics were going to change.

‘They said that if I saw somebody carrying a rifle or a rocket launcher, I shouldn’t fire at him. Only if he shot at me or a member of my patrol, and I could see a muzzle flash from his rifle, could I use my weapon.

‘I was shocked and so were my mates. We are trained to close in and kill the enemy, not to let him stroll on, watch us and let him choose the best time to ambush us.

Indeed.

Afghan Rules Of Engagement Continue To Make No Sense

Marine Corps 1st Lt. Joshua Waddell, 25, in Sangin, Afghanistan, is executive officer with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Corps Regiment, from Twentynine Palms, Calif. (Courtesy photo)

Marine's Career Threatened By Controversial Rules Of Engagement -- Washington Examiner

Joshua Waddell, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marines, appeared on his way to a stellar career as an American military officer. The son of a retired Navy SEAL commander, Waddell had won a Bronze Star during his first tour of duty in Afghanistan and had returned for a second.

Then he made a decision in combat that military experts say has severely jeopardized his future in the corps.

Read more ....

My Comment: I do not know the details of this case, but I do know that I have lost count on how many posts I have done outlining the ridiculousness (and dangers) in U.S. of rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I guess I can add another one to the list.

Will Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement Change .... Or Remain The Same?

David Petraeus testifies during his confirmation hearing to become commander of US forces in Afghanistan. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

No Real Change Coming To Afghan ROE Or Tactical Directive: Petraeus -- Defense Tech

Incoming Afghan commander Gen. David Petraeus told senators today at his confirmation hearing that he has no intention of changing the rules of engagement or the “tactical directive,” which guides the use of air strikes, put in place by his predecessor.

What he will do is ensure that those rules are being uniformly applied by commanders in the field and that overly cautious officers at various levels are not imposing their own maximalist interpretation of the ROE and directive, and thus slowing the responsiveness of fire support when troops’ lives are on the line. “We have to be absolutely certain that the implementation of ROE and tactical directive is consistent across the force.”

Read more ....

More News On Afghanistan's Rules Of Engagement

Petraeus Pledges Look at Firepower in Afghanistan -- New York Times
Petraeus says he will review Afghanistan rules of engagement -- Washington Times
Petraeus: Strategy won't change, but rules of engagement might -- Stars And Stripes
Afghanistan war: General Petraeus rethinking rules of engagement -- Christian Science Monitor
Petraeus would study uses of U.S. force if confirmed -- USA Today
Petraeus: I’ll Change Afghanistan’s Rules of War -- The Danger Room
The Side Effects of the Afghanistan Rules of Engagement -- Captain's Journal

My Comment: When it comes to rules of engagement in Afghanistan, the Captain's Journal has been one of the best in analyzing and dissecting the consequences (and ramifications) of such rules.

As to the question .... will the rules of engagement change if Petraeus is in charge? Everyone is saying yes with the exception of Defense Tech. As to who is right .... that is an easy question .... it is Defense Tech.

Defense Tech quotes Petraeus accurately .... that he has no intention of changing the rules of engagement or the “tactical directive,” which guides the use of air strikes, put in place by his predecessor.

Instead .... the rules will be applied uniformly, and commanders will not be permitted to implement their own maximalist interpretation of the ROE and directive

Sighhhh .... if this is the case .... nothing substantially is going to change.

Rules Of Engagement To Be Review In Afghanistan

KABUL ARRIVAL - U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, center, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is greeted by Army Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, left, deputy commander, International Security and Assistance Force, Joint Command Afghanistan and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, right, in Kabul, June 25, 2010. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley

Petraeus To Modify Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement, Source Says -- FOX News

A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.

Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Read more ....

More News On The Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan?

General David Petraeus to change Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan -- The Telegraph
Petraeus will review controversial rules of engagement -- Stars And Stripes
Petraeus to face soldier complaints over war rules -- AP
Petraeus set to review Afghan rules of engagement -- CNN

Fallen Soldier's Parents Critical Of Obama And Afghan Rules Of Engagement -- NBC

LAKE GEORGE - The parents of Army soldier Benjamin Osborn said Thursday that U.S. Bill and Beverly Osborn say that new military rules of engagement are making soldiers on the ground more vulnerable to attack, including they say, in the final battle that took their son's life.

"They were ambushed they were under attack and they couldn't fire until they were ordered to do so," Ben's father Bill Osborn said.

Read more ....

My Comment: The Captain's Journal was one of the first blogs to point out how destructive the rules of engagement have been for our forces in Afghanistan. with waht has happened this week, he provides some excellent analysis in his latest blog post.

The Main Stream Media Are Now Highlighting Afghanistan's Restrictive Rules Of Engagement

TACTICAL HALT - U.S. Army paratroopers stand back up after a tactical halt while on their way back to their outpost in Charkh Valley, Logar province, Afghanistan, June 13, 2010. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Russell Gilchrest

General Faces Unease Among His Own Troops, Too -- New York Times

Riding shotgun in an armored vehicle as it passed through the heat and confusion of southern Afghanistan this month, an Army sergeant spoke into his headset, summarizing a sentiment often heard in the field this year.

“I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”

Read more ....

My Comment: This blog .... and many others .... have been voicing our concerns on how restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan was costing lives. It seems the New York Times has also woken up to this realization.

Some In The Press Are Beginning To Notice The Prohibitive Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan

1st Lt. Shane Futchko, a physician assistant assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul, gears up for a foot patrol, May 23, 2010, on Forward Operating Base Smart, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Manuel J. Martinez

Rules Of Engagement Complicate Afghanistan Struggle -- Houston Chronicle/The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes."

Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.

Read more ....

My Comment: The Captain's Journal was one of the first to bring to light how changes to the rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan is in fact putting our soldiers (and our allies) into harms way.

I am glad that the Washington Post is publishing this story, but George Will's post is only a small heads up into how impossible the Afghan mission has now become for our soldiers and their commanders.

Recent Firefight Shows Limits Of Afghan Rules Of Engagement

SEQUALA WALK - U.S. Army soldiers and Afghan national police officers walk down a path while on their way into the village of Sequala, Jalrez District, Wardak province, Afghanistan, May 11, 2010. This combined forces patrol is going to communicate with and help maintain good relations with the locals. The U.S. soldiers are assigned to the 1st Platoon, 401st Military Police Company. U.S. Army photo by Sgt Russell Gilchrest

Intense Battle Shows Limit of ROE -- Military.com

FORWARD OPERATING BASE RUSHMORE, Afghanistan --- The tinny voice came in crackling through a radio speaker mounted to the plywood walls of the command post. A squad of American Soldiers and their Afghan army allies were taking fire from insurgents near a small village outside Yahya Khel.

Rounds from an estimated 20 insurgents' AK-47 rifles snapped past until the Soldiers and Afghan troops fired back.

Read more ....

My Comment: Will General McChrystal now change the ROE in Afghanistan .... I doubt it. The battle in Afghanistan is becoming more political than military .... and changing the rules of engagement will be perceived as a political defeat both in Afghanistan and back home in the U.S.

U.S. Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan

Don't expect air support: Echo Company under fire in July. Getty

Bombs Not Away: A'stan Rules Put Troops At Risk -- New York Post

As part of his push to win over the people of Afghanistan, top US Gen. Stanley McChrystal in July abolished air attacks in all but the most dire of circumstances. But that ban is having all kinds of ugly and unexpected consequences.

US troops are paying a tough price for it. Consider the running firefight that Echo Company of the 2nd Batallion, 8th Marines faced in the town of Mian Poshteh in late August.

Read more ....

My Comment: I covered this in a previous post. For more information, go to How Changing The Rules Of Engagment In Afghanistan Is Killing Our Troops And Making Us Lose The War.

Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops (Audio)

LINE TRAINING - U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Scott "Doc K" Kuniyuki provides security for the landing zone during 9-line training with Polish medics and Special Forces along with U.S. Army personnel on the side of a mountain inside Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, Dec. 7, 2009. Kuniyuki is a medic assigned to the Provincial Reconstruction Team Ghazni. U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Sarah Webb

From NPR:

As part of the new American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines must work first to protect the Afghan population. Given the choice between killing the enemy or risking civilian lives, they have been willing to let the enemy go. NPR's Tom Bowman was in Afghanistan earlier this year and witnessed troops grappling with the dilemma of whether to shoot.

Read more ....

My Comment: Concerns about ROE have only been discussed among bloggers and military forums .... this is the first time that I am reading about this in a "main stream media" outlet. Finally .... after almost a year of discussion .... people are catching onto this story.

The Rules Murdering Our Troops -- A Commentary

U.S. Army soldiers visit the Kohistan district, Afghanistan, Sept. 16, 2009, to assess the progress of a road construction project. The soldiers are assigned to the Kapisa-Parwan Provincial Reconstruction Team. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Teddy Wade

From The New York Post:

When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortu nate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.

In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.

Read more ....

My Comment: I usually do not post a commentary from Ralph Peters. I tend to disagree with about 80% of what he says. But he is occasionally right, and in this post he is definitely right.

Changing the rules of engagement in Afghanistan has resulted in an explosion of violence, more casualties, and a probable prolongation of a war that should have ended years ago. Unfortunately, I do not see these rules of engagement changing with this administration, and as the death toll rises I expect them to be even more dedicated to conducting a war that is more focused on appealing to political constituencies than to protecting the American soldier on the ground.

List Of New US Military Guidelines In Afghanistan

U.S. Marines patrol the small town of Dahanah, next to Now Zad, Helmand province, Afghanistan, in order to develop relationships with the civilians in the area, June 26, 2009. U.S. Marine Corps photo

From The AP:

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. military made public new guidelines Monday for its troops in Afghanistan, battlefield rules that seek to reduce the number of civilian casualties in an increasingly deadly war.

Civilian deaths caused by U.S. and NATO military operations have long been a source of friction between President Hamid Karzai and the international force. Such deaths alienate Afghan villagers, causing a loss of support for the international mission and the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

Read more ....

My Comment: The three directives for U.S. and NATO forces, posted on the military's Facebook page as part of a longer statement, are:

_ Airstrikes must be very limited and authorized but can be used in self-defense if troops' lives are at risk.

_ Troops must be accompanied by Afghan forces before they enter residences.

_ Troops cannot go into or fire upon mosques or other religious sites. This is already U.S. policy.