Did Rules Of Engagement Prevent Fire Support For A U.S. Team Surrounded By The Taliban During A Fire-Fight This Week?

An AC-130H gunship jettisons flares as an infrared countermeasure during a training exercise on Aug. 24, 2007. JULIANNE SHOWALTER/U.S. AIR FORCE

Washington Post: Congressman questions if Army Special Forces denied rescue force, fire support

A Republican congressman who previously served as a Navy SEAL commander said Thursday that bureaucratic red tape might have delayed a rescue force and prevented close air support from adequately helping an Army Special Forces team during a firefight in southern Afghanistan this week in which one American was killed.

Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), questioned if the rules of engagement in Afghanistan played a role in limiting the support troops on the ground received. They remain “so restrictive that when a unit is pinned down available assets are not given the latitude to respond in a timely manner and it appears in this case that it cost lives,” Zinke said in an interview.

WNU Editor: I first heard about this from the Daily Caller .... Reports: C-130 In Support Of Trapped Operators Restricted Due To Fears Of ‘Collateral Damage’ (Daily Caller). The Pentagon has been quick to respond .... CENTCOM: AC-130 'absolutely did fire' in Marjah battle against Taliban (Stars and Stripes) and AC-130 Gunship ‘Responded Quickly’ to Fatal Firefight in Afghanistan: DoD (DoD Buzz).

And I Thought U.S. Rules Of Engagment In Afghanistan Were Stupid

Photograph: Sean Clee/Royal Navy/PA

British Soldiers Resort To 'Baiting' Taliban To Beat Rules Of Engagement -- The Independent

Platoon commander describes frustration at being forced to lead troops 'to get shot at'.

British soldiers in Afghanistan are being forced to act as bait in an attempt to draw the Taliban into opening fire, a serving platoon commander has alleged.

Soldiers are risking their lives to get round strict rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only if they are being attacked or are in "imminent danger".

The Taliban are increasingly exploiting the rules by hiding weapons in undergrowth near patrol routes – meaning British forces cannot act against them until they actually pick up their guns.

Read more ....

My Comment: This is unbelievable. It takes a left leaning newspaper in Britain to point out how stupid the Conservative government is in their Afghan ROE policy .... with even the BBC pointing out the sheer idiocy of this policy. Unfortunately .... even with all of this publicity .... I can easily predict that the British government and PM Cameron will do absolutely nothing to change it.

Talk About Insane Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan

The controversial policy was emerged at an inquest into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan Photo: PA

Soldiers Told Not To Shoot Taliban Bomb Layers -- The Telegraph

British soldiers who spot Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs are told not to shoot them because they do not pose an immediate threat, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.

They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties.

The controversial policy emerged at an inquest into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier from the 2nd Batallion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

Read more ....

Update: Soldier killed after Army bosses barred him from opening fire on Taliban insurgents planting roadside bombs -- Daily Mail

My Comment: If you want your blood pressure to rise, read this story.

Is Congress Changing The Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan?

Photo: Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Second Amendment For Troops? -- Wall Street Journal

Tucked away in the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill that the House passed Thursday is a curious provision: an amendment that would ensure that troops deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq have the “right to bear arms.”

You read that correctly. The House voted 260 to 160 to approve an amendment to the bill that would revise the military’s “rules of engagement” to ensure troops in conflict zones can defend themselves.

Read more ....

My Comment: In emails and comments, the number one beef that I have received from soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan has always been on the rules of engagement when fighting the enemy. Kudos to Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) for raising an issue that desperately needs discussion and debate.

Gen. Petraeus Issues Rules Of Engagement For Afghanistan

General David Petraeus has warned that the alliance 'cannot kill or capture our way to victory'. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Petraeus Issues New Battlefield Directive -- UPI

KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The new U.S. commander of troops in Afghanistan has issued a directive that they should defend themselves, but also should safeguard Afghan civilian lives.

The directive is the first by the new U.S. commander of Western forces in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

Read more ....

More News On U.S. Rules Of Engagement For Afghanistan

Petraeus renews limits on airstrikes in Afghanistan -- Miami Herald/McClatchy News
Petraeus issues new directive for troops in Afghanistan -- CNN
Petraeus Issues Order To Protect His Troops and Afghan Civilians -- Voice of America
Petraeus establishes new rules of conduct for Western forces in Afghanistan -- L.A. Times
Petraeus reloads rules of engagement -- USA Today
New NATO Military Directive Aims to Avoid Afghan Civilian Casualties -- Voice of America
Petraeus focused on Afghan civilian protection -- Washington Times
Petraeus Clarifies Rules To Avoid Civilian Casualties -- Radio Free Europe
Petraeus Stresses Shielding Afghans, Self-Defense in New Rules -- Bloomberg
Petraeus focuses on civilians in Afghan directive -- BBC
Petraeus issues new rules on use of force -- Washington Post
Petraeus: Avoid Afghan Civilian Deaths -- FOX News
Petraeus Leaves Intact Highly Restrictive Afghanistan ROE -- Defense Tech

My Comment: In short .... nothing has changed, with the exception that lower level commanders will now be more responsible for the decisions that they make.

General Petraeus Resets Afghan Airstrike Rules

General David Petraeus has warned that the alliance 'cannot kill or capture our way to victory'. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Petraeus Resets Airstrike Rules In Afghanistan -- FOX News

WASHINGTON — U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have eased a rule covering the use of force that has been a source of discontent among American troops, according to military officials.

As a result of findings during a review commissioned by Gen. David Petraeus, it has been made clear that troops are allowed to request airstrikes and artillery strikes against insurgents hiding in dilapidated buildings or other abandoned structures. Commanders conducting the review said they found some junior commanders had misinterpreted the rules to mean they weren't allowed to fire on such places.

Read more ....

More News on The Rules of Engagement Being Changed in Afghanistan

Petraeus Puts Protecting People at Strategy’s Center -- U.S. Department of Defense
Protecting Afghan civilians a priority, Petraeus tells troops -- The Guardian
Petraeus Resets Afghan Airstrike Rules -- Wall Street Journal
Petraeus' rules: Fight Taliban, get to know the locals -- CNN

My Comment: This has been long overdue.

Are The New U.S. Rules Of Engagement Working In Afghanistan?

US and Afghan National Army soldiers enter the front door of a suspected house during a night raid in search of Taliban insurgents in Razbeg village in Ghazni Province, in this 2007 file photo. Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Newscom/File

In Afghanistan War, A Kinder, Gentler Night Raid? -- Christian Science Monitor

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has issued new rules designed to make night raids less invasive, as part of the broader Afghanistan war strategy to win over the population. Some soldiers say it’s hamstringing their ability to nab Taliban militants.

Arghandab Valley, Afghanistan

“Open this gate! We are from the Afghan National Army!”

It was the midnight call that Afghan villagers have learned to dread, though this night raid would turn out less aggressive than usual.

Following a tipoff that a compound housed Taliban bombmakers, night vision-enabled Afghan and American troops stalked the sandy lanes of Kuhak village, part of the lush Arghandab Valley in southern Kandahar Province. Overhead an American surveillance drone hovered, relaying images to a nearby control room of men carrying boxes and scurrying across the courtyard.

Ten minutes passed. The soldiers waited outside the gate.

Read more ....

My Comment: In the history of warfare, such tactics have never been used.

But will these tactics and rules of engagement work?

My own take .... I doubt it. If you are not out there killing or imprisoning the enemy, you are only setting yourself up for a lot of hurt in the future. In Afghanistan .... this touchy feely way of conducting military operations may have their supporters back home .... but for the Taliban this is a Godsend, and I am sure they are taking advantage of it to the full.

Rules Of Engagement Are Hindering US/Afghan Forces

General MacChrystal, Commander of ISAF Forces (left) and Brig Gen. James Cowan walk through the town of Showal Photo: Julian Simmonds/The Telegraph

Some Troops Say Strict Rules Of Engagement Slow Their Advance On Taliban Stronghold -- Chicago Tribune/AP

MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

Read more ....

My Comment: Be nice to the enemy .... yup .... it is amazing that there are serious people in Washington DC and in Afghanistan who actually believe that such rules of engagement will work.

Sigh .... good Americans are going to die needlessly because someone in the chain in command and his political/military superiors in the States are scared that an Afghan family may get killed in a crossfire.

My prediction .... a few years from now when NATO and allied forces leave the country .... the politicians will pat each other on their backs and proclaim success and "peace in our time". Two years after that .... the Taliban will be marching into Kabul proclaimed as victors and heroes while they go about slaughtering all those Afghans who believed in us and our policy towards engaging the enemy.

Plus ca change ... plus c'est le meme chose. The more things change .... the more they stay the same. In Afghanistan's case .... repeating history is one thing that I am sure will happen.

Update: U.S. Troops In Marjah Threatened By Lawyers -- Strategy Page
Rules of Engagement rears its ugly head...again. -- Snafu

More Restrictions For US Forces In Afghanistan

STAIRWAY PASSAGE - U.S. Army soldiers conduct a foot patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan Jan. 16, 2010. The soldiers are assigned to Company C, 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Efren Lopez

US To Tighten Afghan Raid Rules -- Seattle PI/AP

KABUL -- The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan plans to tighten the rules on night raids, The Associated Press has learned, in a new step to curb public anger over perceived violations against civilians.

Such raids have emerged as the No. 1 complaint among Afghans after Gen. Stanley McChrystal curbed the use of airstrikes and other weaponry last year.

NATO spokesman Rear Adm. Gregory Smith told the AP a new directive would be issued soon to set down new rules for night raids.

Read more ....

My Comment: For the past year the rules of engagement have been continuously changed in Afghanistan. But at the same time .... Taliban control of the country has increased, casualty rates for Afghans are skyrocketing, and coalition forces are being killed and wounded at unprecedented rates.

Hmmmm ..... I am not inside Afghanistan but looking at what has happened (and is happening) makes me skeptical that changing these rules of engagement will change what is happening in the battlefield in our favor .... instead, it will probably get worse.

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.

Marines Wrestle With Afghanistan’s New Airstrike Rules

U. S. Army soldiers provide security while Afghans walk through the streets of Carabar village of Parwan province, Afghanistan, July 4, 2009.U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Richard W. Jones Jr.

From The Danger Room:

Gen. Stanley McChrsytal, the new commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has issued new, more restrictive rules for when American troops can call in airstrikes, after a controversial incident in May killed dozens of civilians. From now on, U.S. forces must “work through” engagements where civilians might be at risk, rather than simply calling in a B-1 bomber, according to one officer with knowledge of McChrystal’s new rules.

On the surface, the rules — about “weighing the gain” of airstrikes against the cost of civilian casualties” — don’t sound that much difference from the old guidelines. They urged urged caution, too. But the Marines, who last week launched a major offensive meant to re-take a swath of southern Afghanistan from the Taliban, are already seeing a difference.

Read more ....

My Comment: It is to early to say if these rules of engagement will impact the Afghan war in a matter that will make military operations difficult or impossible for the soldiers who must implement them. But if the experience of having Burqa clad Taliban slipping away starts to repeat itself ..... we will then know that we have a problem.

Civilian Risks Curbing Strikes in Afghan War

Tribesmen sift through the rubble of a residential structure after an air strike by U.S. forces in the Sheikh Baba area of Mohamand region at the Pakistan-Afghan border in June. (Mohammad Shahkar/Reuters)

From the New York Times:

Dawn was breaking over Afghanistan one day this month as Air Force surveillance planes locked in on a top-ranking insurgent commander as he traveled in secret around Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban.

But as attack aircraft were summoned overhead to strike, according to a recounting of the mission by Air Force commanders, the Taliban leader entered a building. Intelligence specialists scrambled to determine whether civilians were inside. Weapons experts calculated what bomb could destroy the structure with the least damage.

It had taken the American military many days to identify, track and target the senior Taliban officer. But the risk of civilian deaths was deemed too high. Air Force commanders, working with military lawyers, aborted the mission. The Taliban leader escaped.

Read more ....

My Comment: Commanders and policy makers are probably going to change the rules of engagement soon. This article was leaked because of frustration from ground commanders and intelligence officers. I am sure that a debate is going on now, and that as the fighting intensifies in Afghanistan the bombing will increase.

In Iraq there were numerous incidences where key Bathist or Al Qaeda members were targeted in civilian areas, but they were still bombed. The value of the target was deemed too high to be permitted to escape. This will also probably be the case for Afghanistan. Civilians will need to know that if there is a Taliban officer sipping tea and eating supper in his home, there will always be a chance that a Predator flying in the sky will not know that civilians are there.