Afghanistan ROE Change

[Ken White]

Other than that, if we have to run when we're getting shot at, can we at least shoot illum rounds over their houses?

We cannot risk setting a Goat afire. Heaven forbid we burn a Poppy Crop -- neither Solatium Payments for the Goat or Damage Claims for the crop so caused are authorized.

[IntelTrooper]

We cannot risk setting a Goat afire. Heaven forbid we burn a Poppy Crop -- neither Solatium Payments for the Goat or Damage Claims for the crop so caused are authorized.

I was afraid of that. I guess those payments would have to come out of the pocket of the responsible commander.

[Ken White]

CERP funds again? You Spooks and your nets...

[Entropy]

From my very first operational experience the one consistent theme for our ROE is the inherent right to self defense. That ROE fundamental even applies in peacetime operations. If the reporting is accurate on this, then this ROE change fundamentally alters that and takes away the inherent right of self defense in combat situations that are relatively common in Afghanistan.

The second issue I have with this is that an ROE change is a needlessly draconian, top-down solution to the problem. Why can't the commanding General provide detailed Commander's intent and guidance that subordinates can apply as the situation dictates? Changing the ROE seems to me to show a lack of confidence in the ability of subordinate Commanders to properly follow and interpret the Commander's intent.

[Cavguy]

The second issue I have with this is that an ROE change is a needlessly draconian, top-down solution to the problem. Why can't the commanding General provide detailed Commander's intent and guidance that subordinates can apply as the situation dictates? Changing the ROE seems to me to show a lack of confidence in the ability of subordinate Commanders to properly follow and interpret the Commander's intent.

That's exactly what it is. The obvious problem is that with the "commanders discretion" guidance we are still making a royal mess of things. Not saying it's the best solution, but may be necessary to get the commander's intent across.

I'm not comfortable with it easier, but much of what I hear/read is that we (ISAF) are very quick to call an airstrike to resolve what could be taken care of by other, less destructive, means that don't hand an IO victory to the enemy.

[IntelTrooper]

CERP funds again? You Spooks and your nets...

Ask me again in 25 years...

[Kiwigrunt]

I am reminded of Schmedlap’s post a little while ago on another thread where he said that they got more recognition (Iraq) from the locals once they started making more noise with increased (careful) use of HE etc. This created a perception among the locals that they were doing their jobs!

[Cavguy]

Going to play devil's advocate here -

Is it always necessary to pursue and finish the fight, usually ending w/ a bomb?

I was in a firefight once, had insurgents in a house. Wounded one of my guys. Decided to charge in after supression, got one of my guys killed and another wounded. Wound up bombing the house. Killed about half of a family next door too.

A few weeks later council member Tankersteve was in the same situation about a klick away. He surrounded the house until the insurgent gave up.

I'll pick his solution. I have seen it often where we resort to firepower when other, less lethal options, would do.

I'm not saying it's good for every case, but often our firepower has replaced the use of good tactics and innovative thinking to solve problems. As FM 3-24 says, "sometimes the best action is to do nothing". Keyword "sometimes".

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

Just feeling contrary tonight.

[IntelTrooper]

Going to play devil's advocate here -

Is it always necessary to pursue and finish the fight, usually ending w/ a bomb?

Definitely not. And someone needs to tell some ODA teams that is the case. You're absolutely right -- just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I do have some trouble with being told that if someone pops up over the wall of a qalat and shoots an RPG at me, that I'm supposed to just shrug and leave. Maybe I'm reading the guidance wrong, but I'm fairly certain that a lot of more risk-averse commanders will understand it that way.

I was in a firefight once, had insurgents in a house. Wounded one of my guys. Decided to charge in after supression, got one of my guys killed and another wounded. Wound up bombing the house. Killed about half of a family next door too.

A few weeks later council member Tankersteve was in the same situation about a klick away. He surrounded the house until the insurgent gave up.

Thanks for sharing that. A lot to think about, for sure.

[Tom Odom]

Going to play devil's advocate here -

Is it always necessary to pursue and finish the fight, usually ending w/ a bomb?

I was in a firefight once, had insurgents in a house. Wounded one of my guys. Decided to charge in after supression, got one of my guys killed and another wounded. Wound up bombing the house. Killed about half of a family next door too.

A few weeks later council member Tankersteve was in the same situation about a klick away. He surrounded the house until the insurgent gave up.

I'll pick his solution. I have seen it often where we resort to firepower when other, less lethal options, would do.

I'm not saying it's good for every case, but often our firepower has replaced the use of good tactics and innovative thinking to solve problems. As FM 3-24 says, "sometimes the best action is to do nothing". Keyword "sometimes".

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

Just feeling contrary tonight.

I am with you Devil

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

Ken, I will disagree with you on this one. This has been overdue and we have been dancing with the effects for several years now.

Blackjack putting it in terms of running away from the fight is throwing an emotional issue in on top of an already complicated tactical fight. That you cannot prove they are civilians does not make them targets.

Wilf, again I will finish my disagreement here with the simple statement that civilians in a counterinsurgency fight are friendly meaning that civilian casualties are friendly casualties.

Tom

[slapout9]

Going to play devil's advocate here -

Is it always necessary to pursue and finish the fight, usually ending w/ a bomb?

I was in a firefight once, had insurgents in a house. Wounded one of my guys. Decided to charge in after supression, got one of my guys killed and another wounded. Wound up bombing the house. Killed about half of a family next door too.

A few weeks later council member Tankersteve was in the same situation about a klick away. He surrounded the house until the insurgent gave up.

I'll pick his solution. I have seen it often where we resort to firepower when other, less lethal options, would do.

I'm not saying it's good for every case, but often our firepower has replaced the use of good tactics and innovative thinking to solve problems. As FM 3-24 says, "sometimes the best action is to do nothing". Keyword "sometimes".

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

Just feeling contrary tonight.

Like I keep saying the most important TTP's for COIN are how LE handles situations.

Good Example from above. 1st your surround them and tell them to surrender just like TV, then gas them LE can do this but LOAC forbids this....dum.... change the law,then flashbang dynamic entry as a last resort. And you always have the option of a Tactical withdrawal. Often with better Intelligence about how to do something at another time and place for a better result.

But our Forces are not trained that way or equipped that way or have enough manpower to do this if they were trained and equipped to do this.

Good LE organizations are trained to be assertive NOT aggressive and they are trained to DE-escalate not Escalate. Soldiers are not generally trained that way.

We need a 5 pound grenade that can be dropped from 30,000 feet and hit just where we want it to.

[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.