U.S. Air Strikes In Libya Were Conducted Under President Trump's New Rules That Permit The Military To Conduct Lethal Operations Outside Of A Designated War Zone

Paul D. Shinkman, US News and World Report: In Libya Strike, Military Shows New Lethal Powers Under Trump

The White House has slowly rolled back Obama-era restrictions on drone strikes, shown for the first time in a deadly strike against Islamic State group fighters.

U.S. forces in Africa this week staged what would have been an otherwise unremarkable attack against Islamic State extremists but for one key detail: The operation was the first to rely on authorities granted under the Trump administration that allow the military to conduct lethal strikes outside a designated war zone and without explicit White House approval in advance.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I am not surprised by these new rules .... the war against the Islamic State is not limited to just Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. What I am surprised about is the lack of protests to these new rules that now permit the Pentagon to operate outside of designated war zones. No debate in Congress or the pundit class. A few articles posted here and there. And that's it.

Trump Administration Ready To Change The Rules Of Engagement On Drone Strikes And Military Raids

New York Times: Trump Poised to Drop Some Limits on Drone Strikes and Commando Raids

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to dismantle key Obama-era limits on drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefields, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations. The changes would lay the groundwork for possible counterterrorism missions in countries where Islamic militants are active but the United States has not previously tried to kill or capture them.

President Trump’s top national security advisers have proposed relaxing two rules, the officials said. First, the targets of kill missions by the military and the C.I.A., now generally limited to high-level militants deemed to pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to Americans, would be expanded to include foot-soldier jihadists with no special skills or leadership roles. And second, proposed drone attacks and raids would no longer undergo high-level vetting.

But administration officials have also agreed that they should keep in place one important constraint for such attacks: a requirement of “near certainty” that no civilian bystanders will be killed.

Read more ....

Update: Trump’s New Drone Strike Policy: What’s Any Different? Why It Matters (Luke Hartig, Just Security).

WNU Editor: Will the lawyers still be present in the command and control centers .... apparently yes. Can the enemy use civilians as shields even if the civilians are supporting the enemy .... apparently yes. So what is different is that lower level targets are now targets, and the vetting (by the lawyers) will be less intense (whatever that means).

U.S. Secretary Of Defense Mattis Told The Pentagon To Abandon The Previous Anti-ISIS Strategy And Start ‘Annihilating The Enemy’

Jim Mattis testifies before SASC

Breaking Defense: CJCS Dunford Talks Turkey, Iran, Afghan Troop Numbers & Daesh

Breaking Defense contributor James Kitfield spoke with Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during Dunford’s swing through Japan, Singapore, Australia, Wake Island, and Hawaii. BD readers know that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Sen. John McCain yesterday that America would get a new Afghan strategy by mid-July. In this second part of Kitfield’s interview, Dunford talks Turkey, Kurds, Daesh (ISIS) and whether the US will boost the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan. Read on! The Editor.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The key question and answer is the following ....

.... BD: Is the United States’ “annihilation” battle plan in Iraq and Syria that you’ve spoken of also designed to contain the foreign fighter threat?

Dunford: Yes. When Secretary Mattis looked at our anti-ISIS campaign, he concluded that in some instances we were essentially just pushing the enemy from one location to another. He asked me and the military chain-of-command to make a conscious effort not to allow ISIS fighters to just flee from one location to another, but rather to deliberately seek to ‘annihilate’ the enemy. That was the commander’s intent, and our commanders on the ground have tried to meet that goal of annihilating the enemy in order to mitigate the risk of these terrorists showing up someplace else.

I have lost count over the years on how many complaints I read from the Middle East and elsewhere that the U.S. was enabling the enemy by almost always permitting them a means to escape from the battlefield. It looks like U.S. Secretary Of Defense Mattis wants to put a stop to this practice. I say it is about time.

Will President Trump Protect The Pentagon's Back If New Rules Of Engagement Produce Unacceptable Casualties?

Smoke rises over Kobani after an airstrike, as seen from the Mursitpinar border crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern town of Suruc in Sanliurfa province, October 18, 2014 (Reuters)

Paul D. Shinkman, US News and World Report: 'Areas of Active Hostilities': Trump's Troubling Increases to Obama's Wars

The little-known term has prompted concerns in the military and CIA over whether the White House will protect them, after finally getting from Trump what they wanted under Obama.

The Defense Department is quietly scrambling to define a little-known term coined by the Obama administration that conveys vast authority over how and where it can fight wars, fearing that existing ambiguities could make military commanders less accountable and more liable under the administration of President Donald Trump.

At issue are what's called "areas of active hostilities," a term of art the Obama administration appropriated to identify where U.S. troops could operate with legal protections in places war has not been declared.

Read more ...

WNU Editor: The blow-back on the intelligence community after 9/11 on the techniques and methods that they used to gather intelligence in order to go to war against Al Qaeda is probably still resonating in that community today. As for the Pentagon .... during the Obama administration their approach to warfare .... and the strict rules of engagement that it entailed .... certainly created a culture where officers were careful when it came to applying lethal force. I have lost count over the years on how many posts that I have put-up in this blog of U.S. officers screaming in frustration on the limits that they had when it came to applying lethal force .... and the lost of U.S. servicemen because of it. Fast forward to today .... President Trump wants to change the rules and scope on how combat decisions are made .... and I suspect that he is being strongly influenced by Secretary of Defense Mattis. Its going to take a while before the culture changes .... and considering how politicians have abandoned the U.S. military in the past .... this cautious approach and a demand for a better definition on what they can and cannot do is understandable.

Has President Trump Given The Pentagon More Freedom And Less Oversight To Wage War Against The Islamic State?

Smoke rises from clashes during a battle between Iraqi forces and Islamic State militants in the city of Mosul. REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal

Daily Mail: Trump has let the Pentagon off its leash: President is giving the military greater freedom to wage war how it wants after the Obama administration controlled every move

* The Pentagon has reportedly experienced greater freedom under Trump
* They have been able to run wars without seeking White House approval
* This is especially apparent in Syria, where US forces now number almost 1,000

The Pentagon under President Donald Trump is experiencing greater freedom to run wars without seeking White House approval.

Many in the military appreciate this increased autonomy, but critics charge it could raise civilian death rates, puts the lives of US troops at greater risk and leads to a lack of oversight of America's conflicts.

Nowhere has the shift been more visible than in the fight against the Islamic State group in northern Syria, where under Barack Obama
even minor tweaks to US plans underwent exhaustive White House scrutiny.

Read more ....

Previous Post: Civilian Casualties From U.S.-Coalition Airstrikes Are Hitting Record Numbers Right Now (March 26, 2017).

WNU Editor: The Pentagon is denying these claims .... After civilians killed in Mosul, Pentagon denies loosening rules (Reuters)

Have US Rules Of Engagement Changed To Make It Easier To Launch Military Strikes?

Smoke rises over the city during clashes between Iraqi forces and Islamic State militants, in Mosul, Iraq March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Khalid al Mousily

David Iaconangelo, CSM: Airstrikes in Mosul kill civilians: Are US rules of engagement getting slacker?

Iraqi officers say they're suspending operations against ISIS in Mosul after US-led airstrikes killed as many as 137 civilians this week.

Residents of the Iraqi city of Mosul say a series of airstrikes carried out there in recent weeks by the US-led coalition against the Islamic State could have killed as many as 200 civilians, in what would be the highest civilian death toll in a US-led air campaign since the peak of the Iraq war.

Iraqi rescue workers Saturday were combing through the rubble of a building where residents say as many as 137 civilians were killed in a single airstrike last week, in a part of the city now under coalition control, reported the Washington Post. The US military said it was investigating “conflicting allegations” regarding a strike that occurred sometime between March 17 and March 23.

"We will continue to assess the allegations and determine what if any role a coalition strike may have had in that area,” it said in a statement.

Iraqi Brig. Gen. Mohammed Mahmoud, Mosul’s civil defense chief, told the Washington Post that the building was clearly hit by an airstrike.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The answer is yes (rules of engagement have gotten easier). From my vantage point .... the U.S. has definitely increased the tempo in conducting drone/air/and ground strikes .... and this started within a week after the U.S. Presidential inauguration in January.

Update: Yup .... War Correspondents Describe Recent US Airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen (The Intercept)

White House May Declare More Parts Of The World As 'Temporary Battlefields'

Women walk past graffiti in Yemen, parts of which have been designated ‘temporary’ battlefields. Under Obama, the president played a big role in authorizing attacks on suspected terrorists. Photograph: Khaled Abdullah/Reuters

The Guardian: Pentagon wants to declare more parts of world as temporary battlefields

White House is asked to designate ‘temporary areas of active hostility’, giving commanders same latitude to launch actions as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria

Donald Trump’s administration is considering a military proposal that would designate various undeclared battlefields worldwide to be “temporary areas of active hostility”, the Guardian has learned.

If approved, the Pentagon-proposed measure would give military commanders the same latitude to launch strikes, raids and campaigns against enemy forces for up to six months that they possess in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I guess this is one way to change the rules of engagement in certain regions of the world that are not "exactly" a war/battlefield zone .... but where terror groups that are being targeted by the Pentagon may be residing.

Pentagon Changes Rules Of Engagement In The Battle For Mosul

WNU Editor: From the AP .... U.S. changes rules of engagement for Mosul fight in Iraq (Military Times/AP). In short .... U.S. and western coalition forces are now embedded on the front-lines, and when contact with the enemy is made .... calling in air strikes to eliminate the enemy are expedited.

On a side note .... critics on the U.S. led bombing campaign are raising concerns .... US-led coalition is 'killing more civilians than Russia' (The Telegraph).

Is The Trump Administration About To Change U.S. Rules Of Engagement In The War Against Extremists?

US Special Troops Battalion (Reuters / Peter Andrews)

The Hill: White House walks back assertion military won't target US citizens overseas

The White House on Tuesday walked back its assertion that the military will never target U.S. citizens in overseas operations.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters earlier in the day that “no American citizen will ever be targeted” when asked whether the Trump administration would deliberately go after U.S.-born people with ties to extremists.

The statement represented a break with policy set under the Obama administration.

But a White House official later clarified that “U.S. policy regarding the possible targeting of American citizens has not changed.”

Read more ....

WNU Editor: President Obama did specifically order the killing of U.S.-born alleged al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen .... so the precedent is there. But as to changing the rules of engagement in general .... I am sure there is a revision being done right now, and there will be some changes.

U.S. Green Berets Fighting Against The Islamic State In Northern Syria Are Frustrated With Current Rules Of Engagement

Colonel Kevin C. Leahy is receptive to the complaints of his soldiers about the command structure's micromanagement, but said he allows his forces to figure out how to do the job. (U.S. Army)

Washington Times: Green Berets in Islamic State fight frustrated with top brass micromanagement

The secretive teams of Green Berets guiding rebels in northeast Syria have expressed frustration with the amount of micromanagement they receive from a top-heavy headquarters in Iraq and the United States.

Special Forces sources tell of support staff watching the free-spirited Green Berets on reconnaissance aircraft and then criticizing their performance as they conduct the mission officially described as “train, advise and assist” the multi-ethnic Syrian Democratic Forces. The Americans and SDF are fighting their way toward Raqqa, the Islamic State terrorist army’s home base in Syria. Some of the “assisting” has drawn the Americans into firefights.

One officer chalked up the complaints to the sensitive political situation of U.S. troops on the ground in a chaotic country amid competing groups of Arab, Kurdish and Turkish forces, all converging with different objectives. The Green Berets, known officially as Army Special Forces, must act under strict combat rules after President Obama approved their insertion one year ago.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This has been a common complaint for the past decade .... but I my gut is telling me that this is going to change when the Trump administration takes office next month.

The Islamic State Is Taking Advantage Of U.S. Rules Of Engagement

US Special Troops Battalion (Reuters / Peter Andrews)

Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times: Islamic State exploits U.S. rules of engagement, Obama’s aversion to civilian deaths

Even in losing, the Islamic State group has shown it conducts a “lessons learned” exercise so it won’t repeat battlefield mistakes.

Whether it can forestall what the Obama administration predicts is an inevitable defeat in Syria and Iraq is doubtful. But the fighters’ attention to U.S. rules of engagement has paid dividends at times.

Learning lessons in war is a major intellectual exercise by the U.S. military and other advanced armed forces. The Army operates the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Although the Islamic State does not operate at that level of sophistication, its leaders do make changes on the run.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: No kidding.

New U.S. Rules Of Engagement Permit More Civilian Casualties In The Air Campaign Against The Islamic State

Smoke and flames rise over a hill near the Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike on Oct. 23, 2014. US military forces focused airstrikes on the area to turn back Islamic State forces.

Credit: Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters

USA Today: New rules allow more civilian casualties in air war against ISIL

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has approved airstrikes that risk more civilian casualties in order to destroy Islamic State targets as part of its increasingly aggressive fight against the militant group in Iraq and Syria, according to interviews with military officials and data.

Since last fall, the Pentagon has delegated more authority to the commander of the war, Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, to approve targets when there is the risk that civilians could be killed. Previously, authority for missions with the potential to kill innocents had been made by the higher headquarters of U.S. Central Command. Seeking approval from above takes time, and targets of fleeting opportunity can be missed.

Read more ....

Update: New Pentagon rules allow anti-ISIS airstrikes that could cause more civilian deaths (PRI)

WNU Editor: Why this major shift in U.S. policy now .... my guess is that the White House is not happy with the current campaign against the Islamic State, and have decided that some air-strikes are acceptable because of the targets even if this means more civilian casualties.

The Death Toll From Recent U.S. Air Strikes Have Yielded Higher Casualty Counts Than Usual

A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer supersonic bomber flies over northern Iraq after conducting air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets September 27, 2014. REUTERS/Handout

The Atlantic: American Airstrikes Become Deadlier

Recent U.S. attacks on terrorist camps in three different countries have yielded much higher casualty counts than usual.

An American airstrike on an al-Qaeda training camp in southern Yemen killed at least 50 fighters on Tuesday, according to the Pentagon and local reports. “The attack took place as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) recruits queued for dinner at the camp, west of the port city of Mukalla on Yemen’s south coast,” Reuters reported.

The episode was the latest large-scale attack in a series that, over the past month, has included the bombing of an al-Shabaab training facility in Somalia, which killed 150 people, and strikes against an Islamic State camp in Libya, which killed more than 40 people, including two Serbian hostages.

Read more ....

Previous Post: US Airstrike Kills More Than 70 At An 'Al Qaeda Camp' In Yemen

WNU Editor: It looks like U.S. rules of engagement have been changed when it comes to targeting Al Qaeda or Islamic State targets.

White House Continues To Resist Changes To Its Rules Of Engagement Against The Islamic State

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in Syria, in this U.S. Air Force handout photo taken early in the morning of September 23, 2014. (Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Matthew)

Washington Post: As bombing in Syria intensifies, a debate about the rules of engagement

President Obama’s order to intensify air attacks in Syria has led to new internal debate over whether to loosen tight restrictions on strikes against Islamic State targets that risk civilian casualties, according to senior administration officials.

But so far, at least, the White House has resisted proposals to change the rules of engagement for the bombing. Each strike, whether against a pre-planned target or one chosen on a “dynamic” basis by patrolling aircraft, is weighed against likely collateral damage and must be individually approved by top officers at the coalition operations center in Baghdad.

“We are trying to develop intelligence to get targets, to leverage opportunities . . . to create strikes that have a strategic effect,” a U.S. military official said. “But we’re going to keep doing those the same way we have done. We will not willy-nilly go after a target because it’s right there, right now.”

Update #1: US Officials Discuss Whether to Change ‘Rules of Engagement’ in Syria, Iraq (Sputnik)
Update #2: U.S. officials discussing changes to 'rules of engagement' (CNN)

Previous Post: 75 Percent of U.S. Airstrikes Against The Islamic State Strikes Have Been Blocked Due To White House Rules Of Engagement

WNU Editor: Here is an easy prediction .... President Obama is not going to back down.

U.S. Has Mapped The Islamic State's Safe Houses, But Will Not Launch Air -Strikes For Fear Of Civilian Casualties

Pictures show an IS Command and Control Centre in Syria before (L) and after it was struck by bombs dropped by a US F-22 fighter jet. This was the first time an F-22 was used in a combat role. Reuters

Washington Times: U.S. has mapped ISIS hiding spots, but won’t launch strikes for fear of civilian deaths

Civilian casualties, desire to study operations cited as reasons.

In a secret project tied to the overall U.S. campaign against the Islamic State, intelligence officials have spent months mapping out known physical locations of media safe houses where the extremist group’s operatives are compiling, editing and curating raw video and print materials into finished digital propaganda products for dissemination across the Internet.

Most of the locations are embedded in heavily residential areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya and are not being targeted by U.S. airstrikes because of Obama administration concerns about civilian casualties, according to sources who spoke to The Washington Times only on the condition of anonymity.

WNU Editor: I say .... give this intel to the Russians .... but I suspect that they will not.

The Islamic State Is Learning That The Russians And The French Do Not Follow U.S. Rules Of Engagement

Twitter

Strategy Page: Leadership: Something Bad Happened In 2009

After the November 13 ISIL attacks in Paris France decided to greatly increase its aerial bombing in Syria. Since France had worked with the United States before in fighting ISIL and both were NATO members, the Americans were asked to help with finding targets to hit. The French quickly discovered that the Americans had discovered many valuable ISIL targets that they had not hit because there was some risk of hurting civilians. French intelligence officers (in charge of identifying targets) were surprised as it was understood that there was always some risk of hitting civilians but believed that the risk had been vastly reduced with the widespread introduction of precision bombs and missiles. The French soon discovered that since 2008 American aerial bombing efforts had been continually ordered to reduce civilian casualties more and more. The French discovered that over Syria about 75 percent of American warplanes sent out to attack ISIL targets returned without attacking anything because there had been some risk of civilian casualties. American staff officers told their French counterparts, off-the-record, that there were plenty of critical (to ISIL) targets the U.S. could hit but have not been able to because ISIL keeps civilians in the vicinity. The Russians, who do not coordinate attacks on ISIL with the Americans, had found many of the same key targets the Americans knew about and bombed them. This caused more damage to ISIL in a few weeks than the Americans had in over a year.

WNU Editor: A rare admission .... Russians, who do not coordinate attacks on ISIL with the Americans, had found many of the same key targets the Americans knew about and bombed them. This caused more damage to ISIL in a few weeks than the Americans had in over a year.

75 Percent of U.S. Airstrikes Against The Islamic State Strikes Have Been Blocked Due To White House Rules Of Engagement

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in Syria, in this U.S. Air Force handout photo taken early in the morning of September 23, 2014. (Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Matthew)

Washington Free Beacon: U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes

‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

WNU Editor: When I read reports like this one .... is when I wonder if President Obama is really serious about this war. Not surprisingly .... I am not alone .... many are not seeing any serious progress in this air campaign .... Despite heavy US airstrikes, campaign against IS in Syria and Iraq achieves only stalemate (AP). This is also impacting Democrat Presidential politics, with even Hillary Clinton now distancing herself from president Obama's strategy .... Hillary Clinton calls for increase in US air strikes against ISIS (CSM).

A Look At Russia's Rules Of Engagement In Syria

© Russia's Defense Ministry's Press and Information Department/TASS

Strategy Page: Murphy's Law: The Russian ROE In Syria

In the last year the U.S. led air coalition has use about 20,000 guided bombs and missiles against ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) targets in Syria and Iraq. Many of the pilots delivering these air strikes are dubious about their effectiveness. That’s because so many steps are required before a target can be hit. There are few American air controllers on the ground in Iraq and often none in Syria (where only special operations troops sometimes operate). The final release (of weapons) decision is made by an American general and only after lawyers and intel analysts have scrutinized the aerial evidence (sometimes augmented by reports from the ground) to ensure that situation complies with the ROE (Rules of Engagement). Pilots are supposed to keep quiet about what goes on out there and most are but there are a growing number of anecdotal reports of prime targets avoiding destruction because of timidity by those in charge of approving targets or the approval process going on for so long that the target opportunity disappeared.

WNU Editor: Russia's rules of engagement are quite simple. The ground observers call it in .... or .... if the pilot sees someone that walks like a terrorist, act like a terrorist, carries a gun like a terrorist, it is probably a terrorist .... hence, bombs away. But what I find interesting about this post from the Strategy Page is their brief summary on America's rules of engagement. It is quite an eye-opener.

Rules Of Engagement Will Soon Be Written As Software For Unmanned Drones

CREECH AFB, Nev. -- Ground crew watch as an MQ-9 Reaper moves out of its shelter at Creech AFB, Nev. June 25, 2008. Larger and more powerfull than the MQ-1B Predator, the Reaper can carry up to 3,750 pounds of laser-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles. The MQ-9 Reaper is assigned to the 42nd Attack Squadron, part of the 432d Wing and 432d Air Expeditionary Wing.(Photo by Steve Huckvale)

How Does a Terminator Know When to Not Terminate? -- Discover Magazine

In the skies above Afghanistan and along the roadsides of Iraq, unmanned military machines are changing the nature of combat. These robots may soon be making life-or-death decisions themselves.

On a scorching early afternoon in August 2007, Col. David “Diesel” Sullivan was doing his daily rounds at Creech Air Force Base outside Las Vegas when he got the call. A pilot under his command at the base, remotely flying an armed, unmanned MQ-9 Reaper aerial drone in eastern Afghanistan, had spotted four men perched on an Afghan hilltop. Were they Taliban? If so, they were perfectly placed to ambush an American raiding party just hours away.

Read more ....

My Comment: It appears that the goal is to take out the human element in making decisions based on what are the rules of engagement, and giving that responsibility to a software program.

I am not impressed .... this is all about positioning oneself to not be responsible and/or accountable for a mistake.

The Captain's Journal Looks At British ROE During The Iraq War

British soldiers stand on guard before the handover ceremony in Iraq's southern province of Basra, Dec. 16, 2007. British troops transferred responsibility for security in Basra to Iraqi forces on Sunday. (Xinhua/AFP Photo)

Rules of Engagement: Letting the Enemy Go Free -- Captain's Journal

More than two years ago I outlined the calamity that British rules of engagement had caused to their campaign in Basra. The security situation began very well at the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but devolved into one in which the British were completely ineffective at fighting the insurgency and had evacuated their outposts and retreated to their largest base.

Due to leaked MoD papers we now know certain details directly from the British on just how hamstrung their troop were due to the ROE.

Despite fighting “the most sustained conflict since the Korean War”, the rules left troops with one hand tied behind their backs, the secret documents said. Ministers refused to change the rules although they caused “significant” casualties.

British soldiers were banned from opening fire unless the Iraqis were actually pointing their weapons at them.

Read more ....

My Comment: I have to stop reading articles like this one .... my blood pressure always goes into the danger zone.