Quote Originally Posted by lobo View Post
The one thing that gets me is how widespread this information is, part of the way to win any conflict (or battle) is to deny the enemy information on our tactics and battle plans. Announcing to the world (and the enemy) what we will or will not do in a situation is just asking for some "smart" opponent to use this against our troops.
my other point to be made is how this can be confusing to anybody on the ground (or air), the last thing we need is for the troops and/or leaders to start second guessing themselves (or third....) for concern on how their action will be view by others.

just my two cents to a interesting thread
*plink, plink*

Lobo

Call me naive, but...

If you presume that the enemy will read this traffic... and that the enemy will then tend to fuse itself in large numbers to population centers in order to leverage a perceived seam in NATO/US RUF...

Maybe, just maybe... that is part of the design of the public release... in addition to assauging some Afghan sensibilities, perhaps a second order effect of the the wide spread release of the directive is exactly so the adversary will read and respond as mentioned above...

A significant problem in dealing with non-compliant forces in AFG is exactly the fact that after getting some "sch-onion" laid upon them in 2001, that got smart and stopped "pooling" into targetable entities...

Of course that's just a wag... stranger things etc etc etc

Time to make the donuts