I wonder if AQ has a Micromanagement/Risk Aversion/Lawfare Exploitation cell? If is does it is probably working overtime right now.
As I have said several times, I agree with a lot of the members here about the use of air strikes and indirect fires. However, it is fairly obvious the general is speaking of direct fires as well. General Dutton made that abundantly clear as to the commander's intent of these changes. The problem is the overuse of air strikes and arty, yet the change according to General Dutton is clear that the policy applies to direct fires as well. This is precisely why I used the wording I did in previous statements. It went from a suggestion to a lawful order just like that.“If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so".
All of this has left me with a few more questions like:
Could the fact that there is potential for civilians to be injured or killed in any built up area, this could effectively put build up areas off limits?
How is this going to effect commanders and NCOs? Will we start seeing a more timid form of engagement, unwillingness to engage in the first place if for no other reson than avoiding a lot of investigations, or murder charges?
How long is it going to take for the Taliban and other insurgent groups to exploit these changes and game the system like they usually do?
Bookmarks