Several considerations, the change in the ROE can cut multiple ways.

a) It might increase popular support, curb the diffuse ressentiment against the foreign troops or more likely at least not inflame it. This is of course a very good thing and might be key. At least the decision makers think (mostly) so.

b) This should greatly enhance the liberty of movement for the enemy in his many forms, enabling him to add overt violence and show of force to his arsenal.

c) This decreases the penalities to support or shelter the enemy. There are less chances that a mistake takes a bloody toll on the (innocent) civilians sheltering or maybe supporting the foe. Kids can transport weapons, people host the foe with even less fear of riprisal.

d) It should also increase the chances of the enemy in direct action. While such a drop in the kill ratio seems to me out of order it is tactically certainly a good thing for the other side.

e) It sends a signal to the world(media) that the coalition tries hard to keep civilian casualities down and does care about the people there.


I wonder if the coalition is able to make up for the loss in bombing power with other, less targeted forms of fire support. In short it might make sense to take the most controversial asset out of the (media, Karzai) firing line and increase the effort delivered by mortars, howitzers, AFV, etc. For example mortars close by are pretty accurate and can fly under the radar of many critics and don't go through so many decision levels. They too should also be handled with care so to avoid to collide too often with the strategic intent.


Firn