Tuesday, June 22, 2010

ROE II

As a follow-up to the previous post on Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan, I did a little poking around on the Internet. Unsurprisingly, there have been other instances of the ROE increasing the danger to our troops.

Perhaps the most egregious took place in Sep. 2009.
We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

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.

Four U.S. Marines were killed, along with eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded.

Hey, when you need light, or smoke, or arty, or air, you need it. It's literally a matter of life or death. What you don't need is delay or denial while higher-ups dither about whether or not it's allowed.

In Feb. 2010 the Wall Street Journal published a story that, if I'd read it anywhere else, I would have thought was satire. Seems like the Marines now have to consult with an attorney before calling in airstrikes.

When Capt. Zinni spotted the four men planting the booby trap on the afternoon of Feb. 17, the first thing he did was call his lawyer.

"Judge!" he yelled.

Capt. Matthew Andrew, judge advocate for 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, advises the battalion about when it is legal to order the airstrikes. He examined the figures on the video feed closely. "I think you got it," Capt. Andrew said, giving the OK for the strike.

The Washington Times published a partial list of the ROE, which includes:

  • No night or surprise searches.
(Seems like that would make it pretty tough to find anything.)
  • Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
(Ditto.)
  • Afghan military or police forces must accompany U.S. units on searches.
(Quoting from the column referenced in the previous post: "But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house 'are good people.' ")
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
(If someone's carrying a weapon, to me that's a prima facie indicator that he's preparing to fire.)
  • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
(In an environment where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and where he routinely hides among and fires from buildings and villages, this rule magically transforms our troops from a military force to a collection of targets.)
  • 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.

(Oh my aching butt.)

Look, I'm all for minimizing civilian casualties, and winning hearts and minds, and all that good stuff. But not at the expense of American casualties. Since osama-oops-I-mean-obama has already announced the timetable to pulling U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq, it doesn't make much sense to needlessly endanger our men and women over there by ROE that quite literally tie their hands.

If we were committed to a long term presence then I could understand the approach of 'small' costs now that pay off in the long run (it's not a small cost if it's your loved one that gets killed or maimed). But if a long term presence isn't in the cards, then lets at least let our troops take reasonable steps to defend themselves. Otherwise this is Viet Nam all over again...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Otherwise this is Viet Nam all over again"

Sorry mate...

It's worse than the Nam!

And,

It gets worse by the day.

JT said...

I have started a dozen posts about ROE, but can't seem to finish them. It is heartbreaking, how many casualties are a result of these nonsensical rules.

CenTexTim said...

I didn't post this link, because it cites an unverified source, but if it's true we have soldiers patrolling over there with no chambered round. It wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I remember guarding nuclear weapons back in the 1970's with NO ammunition. I'll have to post that story someday.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37125