Afghanistan ROE Change

[jmm99]

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:

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will address in the coming months how U.S. and NATO forces are deployed around the country, and forces could be withdrawn from remote regions in order to concentrate troops around population centers.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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Surferbeetle]

...the WSJ reports U.S. Revisits Afghan Battle Rules by Yochi J. Dreazan

WASHINGTON -- The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.

Exceptions will be made when the lives of U.S. and allied personnel are in danger.

The rules make clear exceptions for situations where the lives of U.S., North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Afghan personnel are in danger, U.S. officials said. The guidelines allow U.S. personnel to call in airstrikes or use powerful weaponry if they fear being overrun, can't leave the area safely, or need to evacuate wounded colleagues.

Gen. McChrystal, who arrived in Afghanistan last week, is "trying to make it as clear as possible that risking civilian lives for the sole goal of killing the enemy is not acceptable," said his spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith.

For much, but not all of what we are called upon to do, I am with Cavguy...

Another way to think about it - should the cops level your house because criminals take refuge in it?

I have looked for civilian casualties & property damages on the heals of operations with my CA-bubba team. I have also done the life/limb/eyesight coordination/escort for those caught in the middle. My take is that its our guys first & always, certainly, but we also need to play smart when we can. Why add avoidable friction to our operations when many times its a variable that's under our control?

War is messy and alot of #### happens...we all know & accept the risks so try not to beat yourself up...we can't go back and fix things but inshallah we can go forward and apply what we have learned. 1LT Joshua Hurley, RIP.

[Blackjack]

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

For those who have expressed concern over the issue of being all to quick to call in airtrikes for everything, we are in 100% agreement. The idea of containment of an enemy may work at times, situation will dictate. We had CAS on mission at times, but the FAMAS works just as well for what the Legion does. Now maybe the intent was to keep every commander from calling in a JDAM strikes and hellfires every time a mortar tube goes off, but if so that should be covered in a seperate CAS ROE.

If you can run away from the fight go ahead and do it? Gentlemen, none of us wish to harm any non-combatants, but the top down order to flee from the fight because there may be civilians in the compound, and they may be hostages of the insurgents is not a good plan. Loitering around waiting for them to come out and surrendur may not be all that bright either, you would risk your men to any rienforcements jihad joe could call up. One thign we must ask ourselves here in regards to civilian casualties is this. Were they really civilians, how do we know? If they were hostages and we cannot engage these compounds how can we reasonbly expect to clear, hold, or build anything? Do we really think that the civillian that got held hostage for three days and was tormented by the Taliban will somehow respect us more because we ran away and left him to the mercy of such men?

ISAF will likely come out of such situations looking like base cowards to the locals in many of these situations. They may see it as westerners making excuses for ISAF forces not to fight the Taliban. Putting myself in the enemy mindset for a moment; I can see already hear the jokes in the villages about Americans putting both SAPI plates in the backs of their IBAs in my mind. I know if I were a Mujahideen Commander I would order video cameras to be present for any long term occupation of civil compounds. That way I could get video of the kuffr running away and turn it into some good propaganda. I could also remind the locals of how when the Mujahideen came, the Americans and ISAF crusaders ran away.

Find, fix and finish is the simple and effective answer here. Not find, fix and flee. Having said that mouthful above I will say that I have a great deal of respect for the General, and I know I am being unfair to him by bieng so critical when I do not have the burdens of command placed on me any longer. I also know that regardless of the outcome, he has the best intentions in mind here.