Afghanistan ROE Change

[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?