Afghanistan ROE
[Guest post by DRJ]
An AP report from the Badula Qulp area, West of Lashkar Gah in the Helmand province of Southern Afghanistan:
“Close to the road and relative safety, soldiers saw a man in black walking. He was unarmed. They watched him in their scopes but did not shoot. Western forces in Afghanistan are operating under rules of engagement, or ROE, that restrict them from acting against people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent. American troops say the Taliban can fire on them, then set aside their weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location.
“The inability to stop people who don’t have weapons is the main hindrance right now,” McMahon said after the firefight. “They know how to use our ROE against us.”
— DRJ
Gosh, I hate reading stuff like this. Are we that sick of a society that we tolerate a Major Hasan or ROE that lead to soldiers’ deaths?
Patricia (e1047e) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:18 pmits too bad no one was able to foresee this, and draw up the ROE in such a way as to prevent or reduce the possibility that such a thing might happen.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:37 pmredc1c4 – What makes you think people did not foresee this?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:45 pmi can’t help you with that question: i’m too busy trying to figure out why the regulars here haven’t figured out that sarcasm is my default setting and that i have raised the use of it to an art form…. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:50 pmLet’s see – how do we hinder our military when they are fighting scumbags without uniforms, character, ethics or honesty? Oh, we trust them and send love and kisses and a box of hope and change.
Typical White Person (9f4d2e) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:59 pmDemocrats, and not just the crazy liberal democrats should be held responsible for 99% of the war deaths since 9-11. They always side with the enemy. Anti-american to the core and now led by and Islamist CIC. Anyown who joins the military today has rocks for brains.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 2/14/2010 @ 9:40 pmsubtle, scrapiron…. real subtle.
yellow smoke out.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/14/2010 @ 9:51 pmSome ROE’s as of Dec. 2009. These may have been modified by now in Marjah, but judging from this post, it doesn’t seem that the changes are significant.
• No night or surprise searches.
• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.
• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/12/01/rules-of-engagement-letting-the-enemy-go-free/
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/15/2010 @ 12:55 amOnce again we appear to be operating under some kind of warped Marques Du Queensbury rules during wartime.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/15/2010 @ 7:15 amIt’s all about “Hearts & Minds” –
AD - RtR/OS! (89e14c) — 2/15/2010 @ 8:00 amThe top-level brass don’t have the heart for the killing that needs to be done, and the politico’s are all out-of-their-minds with PC crap.
The whole Afghan policy is a kabuki dance. Back in 2001, the SF guys pretty much ran the show and we won. Now, we see the Obamafication of the battlefield. I said a while ago that it is time to leave.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/15/2010 @ 8:08 amWhat we need to do is use the insurgents’ ROE against them.
TimesDisliker (b41733) — 2/15/2010 @ 8:56 amThe biggest problem with the ROE is that many actions, such as air strikes, artillery missions or helicopter support, have to be personally approved by a senior officer.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:05 amA junior officer leading a platoon in contact does not have time to call HQ and have them find the CO (a Lt (or even full bird) Colonel and convince him to put his career on the line. The specific findings that must be made before a strike can be authorized. If a platoon is taking heavy fire from a building or compound the troops under fire will not know if there are civilisans present.
The biggest problem with the ROE is that many actions, such as air strikes, artillery missions or helicopter support, have to be personally approved by a senior officer.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:06 amA junior officer leading a platoon in contact does not have time to call HQ and have them find the CO (a Lt (or even full bird) Colonel and convince him to put his career on the line. The specific findings that must be made before a strike can be authorized. If a platoon is taking heavy fire from a building or compound the troops under fire will not know if there are civilians present.
Was that HIMARS GPRS miss a result of a bad data entry or bad forward observer/J-STARS target ID?
My understanding is that we are actually disciplining a few O3s for fighting after things get bloody.
We can win here, despite all the promises that we can’t, but we won’t unless we accept what a war really entails. And I really worry that if we were to ever actually “win”, we would simply push the problem to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. What then?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:11 amscrapiron,
A lot of people joining the military today know damn well what it means to have bastards hampering the military.
Joining the military is sometimes more selfless than other times, always fairly selfless though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:14 amIf Osama bin Ladin’s evil twin entered the US disguised as an African American and eventually managed to get himself elected President, would the imposter’s policies differ greatly from those of Barack Obama?
ropelight (517150) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:37 amropelight, I can guarantee you OBL would fight a war a lot better than Obama in some respects.
Obama is just confused. Bush had the benefit of clearly believing what the right course was. OBL has that same strength. Obama’s listening to political advisers who guided him to the democrat nomination and sorta through the general election, and now have to deal with reality. Promising to win in Afghanistan and close GITMO sounds great if you don’t expect to win that year.
It’s like fiscally conservative socialism. It’s something idiots believe when thinking only of result promises.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/15/2010 @ 9:44 am“…we would simply push the problem to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia…”
Comment by Dustin — 2/15/2010 @ 9:11 am
This is magnified by the tendency to think of the “Iraq War”, the “Afghan War”, etc….
These are not wars, they are fields of engagement in the larger War on IslamoFascism.
It would be as if we described WW-2, as the “War in Gualalcanal”, and the “War in Tunisia”, and the “War in Sicily”, etc.
If someone were to talk about all the different “wars” we fought between 1941 and 1945, people would think they were crazy.
As long as we are unable to correctly descibe the activity we are engaged in, we have lost, and AQ has won!
AD - RtR/OS! (89e14c) — 2/15/2010 @ 10:08 amDustin, Obama’s not confused at all, he’s fully aware of what he’s doing, he’s just not on our side.
ropelight (517150) — 2/15/2010 @ 11:42 amropelight, I hope you’re wrong. I certainly understand where you could get that impression though. He’s got a radical background and a lot of his behavior has been troubling.
But I think he’s just one of those sorts who gets along to get along, in Chicago that means hanging with the crazies. We’ll know soon enough.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/15/2010 @ 1:01 pm[…] (Via Patterico.) […]
Afghan ROE endangers the mission « Internet Scofflaw (453ee2) — 2/15/2010 @ 2:18 pm[…] reports that American military forces in Afghanistan are hampered by the rules of engagement, the AP reports the Taliban is using Afghan women and children as human shields: “This is the […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Afghan Human Shields (e4ab32) — 2/17/2010 @ 9:52 pm