"We're pinned down": 4 Marines die in Afghan ambush

[jcustis]

I for one don't buy very much of this story, for a ton of reasons.

[Greyhawk]

...is a few more Generals:

Weeks before his son's death, John Bernard said he had been raising red flags about the military's new rules of engagement policy, which stipulate when and how U.S. soldiers are and are not allowed to use force. The new rules, issued by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, were aimed at reducing civilian casualties.

Now, a month after his son was killed, John Bernard, 55, says he is on a mission to spark a national discussion about the new rules, and the military's broader strategy in the Afghanistan war, which he believes led to Joshua's death and continues to endanger U.S. soldiers serving in the embattled country.

...Bernard's efforts are gaining traction among Maine's congressional delegation. Rep. Michael Michaud and Sen. Olympia Snowe have written letters directly to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Sen. Susan Collins, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has spoken with Gates.

For those who don't recognize the names, John Bernard is the father of Marine Lance Cpl Joshua Bernard, whose photo the AP published over his father's wishes.

Now...

Had it not been for the policy of U.S. forces working closely with Afghanis and the new rules of engagement that restrict use of force in the name of preventing civilian casualties, Joshua Bernard might not have been killed that day, John Bernard said.

The drum is being banged.

[raptor10]

i for one don't buy very much of this story, for a ton of reasons.

+1

[Cavguy]

To those who doubt, I challenge you to listen to the 15 minute audio interview with the story's author, which includes pictures.

If I had watched men die for want of needed support in contact, I would be fuming mad too. Sh*t happens in war, I know that well, but this one apparently didn't have to.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/75300.html

(Sorry, can't embed the video from McClatchy's website)

On the ROE thread I mentioned why I supported GEN McCrystal's new rules, which I still do. I oppose those who can't understand when rules need to be interpreted or violated to do the right thing.

It goes back to my question as to why johnny (joe) can't think and what I posted in that thread as to what I would do if confronted with such a decision. I said:

And then there is the Cavguy solution. If you're on the ground, and the right and obvious thing to do is staring you in the face, just do it, and take the consequences. That's actually what we did that day of the video. My army experiences tell me well considered violations of rules/guidance is generally underwritten by most commanders, especially if conditions warrant.

The task force supporting obviously didn't feel they had that flexibility, or were unwilling to use it. Sad.

Niel

[davidbfpo]

From the newly id'd blogsite: http://www.quattozone.com/ by a US PAO in Afghanistan on the ambush and ROE: http://www.quattozone.com/2009/09/ru...nragement.html

commanders in Afghanistan owe their troops an explanation of why and under what conditions they should place themselves at greater risk. The rest of us need to resist the temptation of jumping on a bandwagon that equates looser ROE with supporting our troops.

Eight years of less restrictive ROE have not prevented tragedies such as the ambush in Ganjgal. In fact, more permissive use of firepower may have contributed to the murderous rage of those responsible for the attack. Had the troops caught in the ambush been able to level the village - or if Lance Corporal Bernard had been able to summon the full military wrath of his country to his aid - we might be mourning fewer dead Americans today. Tomorrow, though, we would mourn those killed by a larger, stronger insurgency in the next village. The new ROE in Afghanistan rely on a hard but sound calculus: greater risk to our troops now means less risk and a greater chance of success for our troops later.

davidbfpo

[Gian P Gentile]

I think Niel makes some very good points, along with others on this thread, especially Schmedlap's caution about establishing facts before making sweeping conclusions.

But to Niel, it is very possible that what drove the actions and decisions in this whole affair was in fact the General's recent guidance to avoid civilian casualties. So on the one hand say you support it, but on the other and very understandable one you are viscerally upset that these men didnt get the fire support they needed.

At least for me this is a tough contradiction (to which your post does not resolve) to let stand.

thanks

gian

[Greyhawk]

Frankly, IntelTrooper's point disturbs me more than any ROE questions... but on to the ROE question. I'm not writing what follows for the benefit of folks who know (aka regulars here), but threads like this one tend to draw the attention of folks who don't (aka visitors via Google, etc), so I think it worthwhile to add this.

From the publicly released portion of Gen McChrystal's tactical directive:

The use of air-to-ground munitions and indirect fires against residential compounds is only authorized under very limited and prescribed conditions (specific conditions deleted due to operational security).

(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.

I am not privy to those other specific options and conditions - so I'm speaking on generic terms. Here's the quote from the story that's generating the heat:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

I'm left to wonder if the radio response from the TOC was "sorry, no can do - ROE says so" - or if not, how this explanation made its way into the story. If I can think of a dozen ways that could happen I'm sure others can, too.

Some of those "ways" include an accurate characterization of the decision process. Which - if that's what it is - reads to me like a misinterpretation of ROE. ("...despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village...") One would hope (and I think this approaches Niel's point) that errors on the side of caution would favor the guys on the ground. But obviously one could argue that (assuming the case is as described) errors in this case favored the bad guys.

None of that indicates the ROE themselves are "bad" - to make that determination we'd need to examine those specific options and conditions - something the guys who made the on-scene decision did, and something those who will officially review this incident will also do.

FWIW: in this case it appears the four Marines were killed in the opening moments of the attack prior to the request for fires, this is not to downplay the issue but to clarify that we are not talking about an incident where any US troops died as a result of whatever decision was made regarding IDF/CAS.

On the other hand, there are other troubling aspects to the (as-told) story of a unit walking to a village (where elders had "announced over the weekend that they were accepting the authority of the local government") at a pre-arranged time to meet, greet, and conduct searches of homes that we haven't delved deeply into.

Meanwhile

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that it did take “some time” for air support to arrive, but the delay was due to distance, not the rules of engagement.

He said the deaths are under investigation, adding, “We will hopefully get to the bottom and figure out if everything operated according to protocol.”

Honestly, I'm glad the attention is being paid. Clarity is a good thing.

[Cavguy]

I think Niel makes some very good points, along with others on this thread, especially Schmedlap's caution about establishing facts before making sweeping conclusions.

But to Niel, it is very possible that what drove the actions and decisions in this whole affair was in fact the General's recent guidance to avoid civilian casualties. So on the one hand say you support it, but on the other and very understandable one you are viscerally upset that these men didnt get the fire support they needed.

At least for me this is a tough contradiction (to which your post does not resolve) to let stand.

thanks

gian

Sir,

I see where my own conflicts may muddy what I was trying to express.

On one level, GEN McCrystal had to tamp down on the excessive use of indirect assets, that despite earlier guidance, was still being employed in ways that strengthened the insurgent's ability to mobilize the use of force.

My fear, articulated better by Ken, was that such guidance falls prey to the bureaucratic imperative and does not contain sufficent flexibility/guidance as to what situations are exceptions to the rule.

No set of rules can ever compensate for every forseeable situation, which is why draconian measures such as the CG's guidance provide opportunities for incidents like this one (if description is accurate) to happen. It is odd, but in effect many are more willing to let others suffer/die than endure a (potentially career ending) reprimand.

In the end, leaders are paid to make hard choices and take responsibility for them.

The greater question is why such draconian guidance was required in the first place - which indicates a greater flaw in our leader development system and lack of understanding of the dynamics present in the Afghanistan operating environment.

Hope this clarifies.

Niel

[J Wolfsberger]

On one level, GEN McCrystal had to tamp down on the excessive use of indirect assets, that despite earlier guidance, was still being employed in ways that strengthened the insurgent's ability to mobilize the use of force.

Niel,

I think we all pretty much agree that the use of heavy ordnance can create bigger problems down the road than those it solves in the immediate here and now. The more pervasive and frequent the use, the greater the likelihood of those bigger problems emerging. Left unchecked, its use would likely increase since, in any situation, people tend to respond with a mix of "here's something from my standard tool kit" and "let's use this, since it's available." So here's a question for you and others with field experience as I try to understand the intention and implications of the new ROE. How much of a problem was the use of heavy ordnance that the new ROE addresses?

[MikeF]

From the newly id'd blogsite: http://www.quattozone.com/ by a US PAO in Afghanistan on the ambush and ROE: http://www.quattozone.com/2009/09/ru...nragement.htmldavidbfpo

From the article:

Eight years of less restrictive ROE have not prevented tragedies such as the ambush in Ganjgal. In fact, more permissive use of firepower may have contributed to the murderous rage of those responsible for the attack

I think there is a problem with causation in this argument. It's like the Army football team saying the only reason the have had losing seasons for the past decade is because they only had a running game so they were going to go to a strickly passing game and no longer run. This argument minimizes and overlooks many other factors most strikingly the long-standing history of Pashtun resistance to central government and propensity to engage in fighting.

In Mike's world, there are a couple of things that I would consider common sense.

1. Bombs dropped from a UAV with no ground observation is mutually exclusive to troops in contact.

2. Dropping precision munitions to close with and destroy the enemy does not equal a scorched earth policy.

Had the troops caught in the ambush been able to level the village - or if Lance Corporal Bernard had been able to summon the full military wrath of his country to his aid - we might be mourning fewer dead Americans today. Tomorrow, though, we would mourn those killed by a larger, stronger insurgency in the next village. The new ROE in Afghanistan rely on a hard but sound calculus: greater risk to our troops now means less risk and a greater chance of success for our troops later

Did the US PAO ask the Taliban if they took this math class?

v/r

Mike

[Ken White]

to make a sensible comment. It has been my experience that newspersons accompanying troops rarely get the story straight, are not generally filled in precisely on what constituted the radio traffic and that firefights are chaotic and stories on what happened vary among participants -- even those who were right next to each other. I've also noted that each passing hour changes most stories...

Though I am still curious about the alleged dichotomy that support was denied and yet WP was fired...

[jmm99]

Here is a factoid from the McClatchy article cited by Niel:

The worst single loss of U.S. military trainers of the war brought out the deep bitterness with which many soldiers view the new rules. They feel unfairly handcuffed, especially in the case of Ganjgal, where women and children were seen running ammunition and weapons to gunmen firing from inside the hilltop hamlet.

IF (and this is an important word - see Ken's comment) this factoid is correct, it cuts both ways: fire coming from an inhabited place (hilltop hamlet) and women and children present; but men, women and children all engaged in combat or combat support.

One wonders if the "specific conditions" (which we rightly do not know as Greyhawk points out) cover this kind of situation.

[J Wolfsberger]

Mike, you raise some good points, but...

Did the US PAO ask the Taliban if they took this math class?

I'm sure they didn't, but we're not the Taliban, so we have to.

[MikeF]

Mike, you raise some good points, but...
I'm sure they didn't, but we're not the Taliban, so we have to.

I was still on my first cup of coffee with that post.

I think Niel and Ken are more on the mark.

v/r

Mike