Rules of Engagement - Not

All games have a set of rules that govern how the game is played. This concept has been co-opted by politicians to control how the military functions when politicos send in the troops. Known as Rules of Engagement (ROE), they control what, when, how, and where force can be used. The idea is to use enough force to accomplish the mission without incurring excessive collateral damage.

Conceptually, the notion is valid. War is, after all, the application of force to achieve political ends. Unfortunately, ROE are often micro-managed by senior levels of command and their political counterparts. When that happens we get situations like those currently occurring in Afghanistan.

According to a recent George Will column, a NCO serving in Afghanistan sent an email to congress detailing the following:

Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.

I've called for and been under illumination rounds, and I'd say the likelihood of anyone or anything getting hit by lightening is much greater than getting hit by an illumination round canister. Plus what about the likelihood of someone in his unit getting hit by a mortar round? I'd rate that as much higher than either lightening or canister impact. Sounds like some REMF should be out there with the troops on patrol instead of bunking in an air-conditioned trailer in the middle of a secure base.

On another mission, some Afghan adults ran off with their children immediately before the NCO's unit came under heavy small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades, and the unit asked for artillery fire on the enemy position. The response was a question: Where is the nearest civilian structure? "Judging distances," the NCO writes dryly, "can be difficult when bullets and RPGs are flying over your head." When the artillery support was denied because of fear of collateral damage, the unit asked for a "smoke mission" -- like an illumination round; only the canister falls to earth -- "to conceal our movement as we planned to flank and destroy the enemy." This request was granted -- but because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired one kilometer off the requested site, making "the smoke mission useless and leaving us to fend for ourselves."

You've got to be kidding! A smoke round offset by a klick?!?! Like the man said, totally useless. That's like a fireman pointing his hose at the house next door while yours is burning down.

To use one of my father's favorite expressions, crap like this just torques my jaws. It's a bunch of useless bullshit that does nothing to defeat the enemy, and only increases the risk to our own people. Folks in that part of the world mistake kindness for weakness.

I get that one component of effective counterinsurgency is winning the hearts and minds of the local population. However, it's a lot easier to win their hearts and minds when you're holding them by the balls.