Afghanistan ROE Change

[Anthony Hoh]

Tony doing something about fires taken from a village does not mean you need to bomb the village or ignore it.

Tom

You know me, I am not an advocate of bombing what I can shoot. Of course there is merit in waiting things out, or an even handed approach. But the way this ROE change reads (from the little we know of it) when unsure of who else may be injured...flee. IMO that is too far.

You do not need to have a masters in Arab culture to see the implications of this. If you think the Taliban are having a I/O field day now, wait until we pull pitch whenever the shooting starts during unplanned meeting engagements.

I am not gonna break out my been there got the T-shirt drawer with you. Because quite frankly I'd lose. But let me give you another counter point to consider from an Advisors perspective.

Story Time...
No S there I was my teams 2 UAH's, and the host MiTT 2 MRAP's, all PPE'd up getting ready to roll out of the gate with our Infantry Kandak to clear the Khwost Gardez pass. MEDEVAC aircraft were in black due to weather we did not roll but the ANA did, without heavily armored vehicles, body armor, fires, etc it hurt our credibility for the rest of the operation, we came out a day later. Sometimes our default to force protection and casualty aversion hurt our overall relationships.

I don’t feel this ROE change will do a whole lot in the credibility/ go protect the populace department, it has the potential to stifle the limited support we get from the populace now for when we do take action. In the micro scale I respect that one Kandak Commanders relationship with his US advisor does not really have strategic impact, but I think we can both agree that these relationship’s are important. There is a reason the ANA want US advisors and not (with all do respect to the foreign memebers of SWJ) French, German, etc… we are not (currently) harangued by our legislature/ civilian leadership with these ridiculous war time caveats. Could the Allies cross the Rhine and take Berlin under these conditions? ( I know you are gonna crucify me for that last sentence but I had to put it in there.)

Tony

[Tom Odom]

No S there I was my teams 2 UAH's, and the host MiTT 2 MRAP's, all PPE'd up getting ready to roll out of the gate with our Infantry Kandak to clear the Khwost Gardez pass. MEDEVAC aircraft were in black due to weather we did not roll but the ANA did, without heavily armored vehicles, body armor, fires, etc it hurt our credibility for the rest of the operation, we came out a day later. Sometimes our default to force protection and casualty aversion hurt our overall relationships.

No doubt it did, But the story is oranges (force protection) to apples (use of fires). In fact the change in ROE is in many ways an acceptance of greater risk.

Again I don't think the ROE change is a change to "flee" or retreat or hide or any other judgement-laden term. It is a change to think hard and adjust accordingly. I also don't see where it will call for withdrawal in unplanned meeting engagements.

When you can show me the Rhine River in Afghanistan I'll tell you whether we can take Berlin.

Best
Tom

[Cavguy]

Rather than speculate about "running away" and what the new ISAF CG might have said, let's look at what he actually said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/wo...trikes.html?hp

“Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly,” General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. “We can lose this fight.”

“When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.”

...

Under the rules that General McChrystal outlined, those strikes would almost certainly be prohibited. They would be prohibited, the general said, even if it meant letting some Taliban get away.

Referring to airstrikes, General McChrystal said, “If it is just to defeat the enemy, then we are not going to do it, even if it means we are going to step away from that firefight and fight another time.”

Or from his confirmation testimony:

http://washingtonindependent.com/453...fghanistan-war

he repeatedly emphasized how his approach in Afghanistan would be guided by “classic counterinsurgency” precepts, such as protecting the population from insurgent assaults, rather than focusing primarily on killing and capturing insurgents. A “military-centric” strategy would not succeed, he told senators, and pledged to review “all” standard practices and rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties, which have outraged Afghans and jeopardized the United States’ relationship with the Karzai government. Losing the support of the Afghan population would be “strategically decisive,” McChrystal said, meaning the war would be lost, and said he believed that adverse perceptions of the U.S. caused by civilian casualties is “one of the most dangerous enemies we face” in Afghanistan. Success will ultimately be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”

Seems to me he's trying to fight on our terms, not the enemy's, and stop playing into their hands with tactical victories but losses in the bigger fight.

[Entropy]

Thanks for being contrarian Cavguy and for the additional info.

It sounds like he thinks we have been too enemy-centric and aggressive in going after the enemy in Afghanistan without paying enough attention to the wider effects of our actions. It sounds a lot more reasonable than it did to me at first. I guess my only question is, who is the decider? Who will have the authority to determine a strike is necessary to protect our force?