| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| McChrystal Urges Greater Protection of Afghan Civilians |
| 2009-06-25 |
| CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan -- U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that U.S. and other NATO troops must make a "cultural shift" away from being a force designed for high intensity combat and instead make protecting Afghan civilians their first priority. The newly arrived four-star commander said Wednesday he hopes to install a new military mindset by drilling into troops the need to reduce the number of Afghan civilians killed in combat. Gen. McChrystal is expected to formally announce new combat rules within days that will order troops to break away from fights -- if they can do so safely -- if militants are firing from civilian homes. One effect of the new order will be that troops may have to wait out insurgents instead of using force to oust them, he said. "Traditionally American forces are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat," Gen. McChrystal said during a visit to Camp Leatherneck, a new U.S. Marine base housing thousands of newly deployed Marines in southern Helmand province. "In my mind what we've really got to do is make a cultural shift." Because the military is such a big organization, the new message will take "constant repetition," he said. President Hamid Karzai has pleaded with U.S. and NATO forces for years to reduce the number of Afghan villagers killed in combat. Mr. Karzai has long said that such deaths turn civilians away from the government and international forces and toward the Taliban, a point Gen. McChrystal underscored. "When you do anything that harms the people you just have a huge chance of alienating the population," he said. "And so even with the best of intentions, if our operation causes them to lose property or loved ones, there is almost no way somebody cannot be impacted in how they view the government and us, the coalition forces." Thousands of Marines this spring have poured into Helmand, which is the country's most violent province and the world's largest producer of opium poppies. Southern Afghanistan is the center of the Taliban-led insurgency, which has made a violent comeback in the last three years. Gen. McChrystal, who took command of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan last week, is making his first visits to regional commanders to outline the new combat rules. He said later that U.S. troops may have been overconfident in the early years of the Afghan conflict after the Taliban regime fell so easily. He said the U.S. may have "oversimplified" the Afghan challenge as a result. Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the Marine commander at Camp Leatherneck, said his forces were already following Gen. McChrystal's new commands. "Our focus from the very beginning has not been Taliban. It's been civilians," he said. "We've paid a lot of attention to avoiding civilian casualties. ... We have a lot of combat vets, a lot of Iraq vets. And I think we learned early on the importance of trust and support of the locals." He added: "There will be plenty of opportunities to kill Taliban, and we're pretty good at that. Bur the focus here, the reason we're here, is the people, not the Taliban." The Pentagon has asked Gen. McChrystal for a 60-day review of the Afghan war, a review that could result in a recommendation to shift troops to new locations in Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal said he didn't yet know if he would request more troops. The Pentagon abruptly pulled Gen. McChrystal's predecessor -- Gen. David McKiernan -- out of Afghanistan one year into a two-year assignment. Gen. McChrystal said his deployment did not have a timetable to it, and that he would stay in Afghanistan as long as the Pentagon wanted him there. He refused to give even an estimate of how long that might be, saying: "My wife would kill me if she read something too long. I do think continuity is key, though." |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #19 Well said, Spavith Scourge of the Jutes9383. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-06-25 19:56 |
| #18 "the reason we're here, is the people, not the Taliban." The reason they're "over there" is that these people  who were members of an organizations based in and sheltered by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan came to the US and did this:  and this  and this  After this Days later he issued an ultimatum "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." which that the Taliban ignored. Hence Operation |
| Posted by: Spavith Scourge of the Jutes9383 2009-06-25 16:28 |
| #17 It might have helped if DoD learned the MSM was on the side of the enemy and actively competed against it. Instead of shutting down the troops on the net and video on the various 'tubes, if they'd found the best and used the talent to conduct 'unconventional warfare' against that media they'd be a in better position today. Old ways of thinking [we just want to refight the good war - WWII] keep holding them down. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-06-25 14:25 |
| #16 It might help if our media (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/AP/Ruthers/etc...) weren't on the side of the terrorists and against America. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-25 12:16 |
| #15 This is also admitting that our military is a failure in the 'information war'. They spend their training, resources, and focus on breaking and killing things and have ignored the requirement to conduct such warfare. The enemy is in that decision loop and our uniform leadership is unwilling or unable to get into theirs. So they continuously 'react' to the enemy's effectiveness in controlling the information. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-06-25 11:51 |
| #14 It is a pity that we can`t get rid of the politicians both sides of the Atlantic, because right now they are a disgrace. |
| Posted by: Dave UK 2009-06-25 10:55 |
| #13 Protecting civs is a police function, not a job for the US military. |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-06-25 10:39 |
| #12 McChrystal's not really wrong - every dead or reported-dead civilian or 'civilian' ends up being a propaganda victory for the Taliban because the US - and its Afghan allies - seem utterly incapable of conducting a propaganda campaign. There are 25 million Afghans and we cannot realistically kill all of them, which is what it could take to 'win' this war if we lose the 'hearts and minds.' We have to get the Afghans capable of being lead trigger-pullers because collateral damage wouldn't be near the propaganda problem. Until that can happen, I think we have to mainly deal in Special Ops and sniper work. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-06-25 10:08 |
| #11 I've said it before and I'll say it again...there's a large (I think a strong majority) segment of the Democratic Party that desperately craves a defeat for American arms...somewhere, anywhere. My bet for "next shoe to drop" on this issue is for controls on the use of tac air to get so tight that ANY request for close-air support must be approved by the White House. The Obamessiah and his robot army do not have this country's best interests at heart, and I believe that they're willing to cause something like this if it will serve their larger objective of driving America off the world stage. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2009-06-25 09:47 |
| #10 The war was soon over. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-06-25 09:25 |
| #9 I realize he's approaching retirement, but isn't it interesting how General Petreaus and his views no long appears newsworthy. One must wonder if General McChrystal's approach makes him the.... new darling of the administration. The verbage certainly matches. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-25 09:25 |
| #8 I was watching old footage of the bombing of Nazi Germany yesterday or the day before on the History Channel. The allies made a decision to bomb German civilian populations around the clock to break the will of the civilian population. The was soon over. War is not pretty and does not follow Marquis of Queensberrry rules. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-06-25 09:25 |
| #7 As I said before this is farking stupid. This is worse than the 'no fire zones' of vietnam. All a terrorist has to do now is flash a civilian (even if they aren't _really_ a civilian) and voila they have an instant no-fire-zone. The Democrats (and I think this is coming form on-high) are bound and determined to recreate Vietnam - no matter what the cost in American lives - to them the more dead americans in 'Bush'es war' the better! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-25 09:06 |
| #6 Unbelievable. that will order troops to break away from fights -- if they can do so safely ...You mean like, retreat? "the reason we're here, is the people, not the Taliban." ....are we now the people's soldiers? He said later that U.S. troops may have been overconfident in the early years of the Afghan conflict after the Taliban regime fell so easily. ....Blaming our "overconfident" troops for the increase in violence since the enemies defeat in Iraq? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-25 07:38 |
| #5 Remaind me again---exactly why USA in Afghanistan? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-06-25 07:35 |
| #4 How about Safe Zones where the infidels are not allowed to fire? After all Pakistan is such a long walk away and even terrorists need R&R. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-06-25 07:34 |
| #3 It's not the ROEs that are the problem per se, rather the 'zero tolerance' attitude that go with them. If you don't trust your subordinates to effectively use the brains they're given, then don't put them in a position of authority. Its the micromanagement that destroys initiative and in the end results in system failure. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-06-25 07:21 |
| #2 Exactly. All they have to do is drag a kid or a woman along and they are invulnerable. Or they hangout in somebody's house and shoot at Americans as they go by. We can't shoot back because we might hit civilians. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-06-25 05:33 |
| #1 I guess we know where terrorists are going to be shooting from in the future. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-06-25 03:26 |