| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| US Brings Back Vietnam Era No Fire Zones |
| 2009-06-22 |
| The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday. The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces. Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed. McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith. "But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban." McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force." But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #23 "larger strategy of clearing operations area by area" Try Malaysia, the Brits, in the 1950's, well before Iraq. Just took us the right general to read the history books. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-06-22 21:55 |
| #22 or whispering them... |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-06-22 20:42 |
| #21 "In sign language, from 1000 meters, at night?" It could happen.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-06-22 20:29 |
| #20 But Special Ops will have to read them their Miranda Rights first. In sign language, from 1000 meters, at night? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-06-22 20:08 |
| #19 But Special Ops will have to read them their Miranda Rights first. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-22 18:58 |
| #18 I'm so naive, I think it's so Special Ops can slide in and knife them..... |
| Posted by: Whutle Squank9189 2009-06-22 18:41 |
| #17 I was thinking the same thing Steve White. McChrystal's not an idiot and has surely studied past COIN operations. He's trying to show them that we're not after wanton destruction to win hearts and minds. Yes, it will tie our hands in some areas but it fits in nicely with a larger strategy of clearing operations area by area a la Iraq, where we move into first one then other areas controlled by the Taliban. The folks who live there get the hell out of dodge beforehand (for fear of being taken hostage by the taliban, which we all know will be a direct consequence of the 'no fire zone' policy) and go live in refugee camps the euros would love to run. Once the towns are clear we'll be fighting Taliban mostly mano a mano. As a bonus, the former residents will hate the taliban that much more when they come home and their towns are levelled in the name of Allah. Meanwhile, McChrystal's special legion are decapitating whatever commanders are dumb enough to show their faces, including in pakistan. If we could get pakistan to truly engage from the east, it would be like opening a 2nd front and squeezing the enemy in between (pincer movement?). [Crystal ball off] |
| Posted by: Grampaw Clomoting7313 2009-06-22 17:14 |
| #16 Since the Taliban don't wear uniforms, they all look like civilians. Even when they are firing crew-served weapons at our guys. We may as well just declare defeat and come home. We have lost in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-06-22 16:35 |
| #15 Next step "Strategic Hamlets"? Let's cut to the chase, declare a "War on Poverty" and send in the Community Organizers. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-06-22 16:28 |
| #14 How much of this is classic COIN? Don't worry about body counts, worry about protecting the people and drying up the sea. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-06-22 15:37 |
#13 "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed. So the words spoken by the President of teh United States spoken after an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor, a mass fatality attack on the continental United States, are in the end no more than empty threats in the vein of Comical Ali. And a soon nuclear Iran is supposed to fear retaliation for an Iran-sponsored terrorist attack on any western country why? The repercussions of a defeat in Afghanistan (which is a certainty now) will be much, much worse than those of Vietnam, and they will be felt by people in Europe and North America. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Unusoth8468 2009-06-22 15:37 |
| #12 Bullhorns and Miranda rights at the ready.... |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2009-06-22 15:25 |
| #11 So be sure to tell the Taliban not to fire in these no fire zones. I'm sure they will say f*ck you very much. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-06-22 14:46 |
| #10 Disengaging when the Taliban mingle with civilians is the Military equivalent of voting "Present". Any "civilian" compound becomes a mini Cambodia. I wonder where this strategy came from? Are war heroes like Kerry and Murtha advising Barack "Inane" Obama? |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-06-22 14:35 |
| #9 The Progressives have won big here. Significant step in remaking this into the Vietnam shame. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-06-22 14:07 |
| #8 What was our policy during the "Anbar awakening"? Or is this what McChrystal had to give up in order to pass muster with the Armed Forces committee in order to get approved. ROE's to me are all political unless you have a serious strategic and tactical reason to issue them. This is not one of them. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2009-06-22 13:51 |
| #7 "USA defeat in Vietnam"? We gave better than we got (I Corps). I prefer to think of it as "2nd place in the Southeast Asia War Games". |
| Posted by: Xenophon 2009-06-22 13:38 |
| #6 This is so FUCKING STUPID. Sorry for the language but this is just so dumb. This has to be driven from the TOP (Obama). So all the taliban have to do is grab a couple of civilians and we will be FORCED TO SURRENDER THE FIELD and leave the area. And when things do go badly - you can bet that Obama will claim he 'inherited this' from Bush. Brilliant! This will only put more civilians in danger. This is much, much, worse then no fire zones. All they have to do is go into an area, flash a couple of civilians and *voila* instant no fire zone. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-22 13:37 |
| #5 So this has the effect of establishing safe zones for the enemies whilst the soldiers have no place that is safe? This is insane. Do they wish to re-create and then repeat the USA defeat in Vietnam? |
| Posted by: Lagom 2009-06-22 13:32 |
| #4 I have a sinking feeling that McChrystal was offered his fourth star at the price of sitting quietly as strategic AND tactical decisions are made by the Obamabots. This can only end badly. I think the next phase is direct White House controls/restrictions on the use of close air support of ground troops. The Obamabots are determined to see our forces defeated somewhere, and causiing a modern Gandamak would suit their plans handily. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2009-06-22 13:29 |
| #3 So all they need to do is grab a couple of civs and we can't engage? Oh, brilliant... |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-06-22 13:24 |
| #2 Oh, good - another failed idea being brought out and dusted off. Wonder how many US troops will be sacrificed THIS time. O is trying VERY hard to lose this war, and if this is how Gen. McChrystal is going to run things, they'll probably succeed. May the fleas of a thousand camels... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-06-22 12:52 |
| #1 Not a good idea then. Not a good idea now. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-22 12:42 |