I'm not sure that's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Anthony Hoh
Gen McChrystal is smarter than me
On this one:
Quote:
I will really be watching with interest on how this gets implemented/enforced.
Me, too. I'll give it a month or two before it quietly disappears. Not a smart move on several levels...
Ok get the drawbacks everyone sees right off
What I haven't necessarily seen is anyone talk about the Afghan piece of this puzzle. What yall are sayin seems pretty ISAF centric. How would you see that piece:confused:
Adding to what Blackjack said and with which I agree, I suspect the civilians
who are nominally innocent will get more visitation by various bad guys and said civilians will not really appreciate the extra attention (nor will they be happy that a small source of income, claiming non-existent casualties, has been removed).
Aside from the impacts on own forces, the net result is most likely to be more, not fewer, civilian casualties and the Afghans will figure that out fairly quickly. How long it will take us to figure it out is the issue because the number of added casualties will be difficult to determine. Plus, it's been my observation that when a US General reinvents a wheel; usually by simply modifying the existing model by making it hexagonal or octagonal -- and then it doesn't work -- reversion to the old, round variety is done slowly, quietly and below everyone's radar. :rolleyes:
Good thing about that technique is the reinventor then gets credit for being 'innovative' while everyone forgets that the innovation didn't work.
We need to get over the idea that "COIN" is something new. All this stuff has been done before. From us in Viet Nam, to the French in their colonies, the British in theirs, the poor Federal commanders tasked to hunt down Morgan and Mosby -- the Hittites, for that matter. Or, to put it in the right location; Alexander...
Trying to think of a legal rule ....
that would require this open-source ROE (positing that the article is accurate ?) - and I am stumped.
Possibly it is an application of Additional Protocals I and II (the best and highest use of Lawfare against the US, so far), which in general shift the burden of civilian protection from the defending force to the attacking force - even though the defending force is hiding amidst the civilians.[*]
On the other hand, it could be a pure and simple political move - or some misguided view of COIN. If fully implemented, this rule would logically result in giving up built-up areas.
But, the article says:
Quote:
Smith said McChrystal will address in the coming months how U.S. and NATO forces are deployed around the country, and forces could be withdrawn from remote regions in order to concentrate troops around population centers.
So, we remove troops from the boondocks (where they can shoot) to built-up areas (where they can't) ? None of this hangs together.
The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, which announced support for the rule, has a Wiki and official webpage. See its "change the rules" page.
Placing the burden on the warring parties is cute - where the AQ-Taliban are not complying with the laws of war as they now exist. So, the burden (as with AP I & II) will only fall on those nations who will follow the rules (no matter how stupid they be).
Looks like a lawfare example to this old buzzard. Maybe some of you younger, more sophisticated folks can talk me down.
---------------------------
[*] AP I & II are not accepted by the US (or by either Astan or Pstan, for that matter). They are accepted by most NATO countries.
Well the source is AP -- with all the credibility that implies
Could be conjecture; could be a ploy, could be a misstatement of intent (accidental or deliberate). We'll have to wait and see...
Every new Boss is good for three or four wild rumors. :wry: