Article

2009-07-08 Afghanistan

Directive re-emphasizes protecting Afghan civilians - USAF Web Site

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-07-08 08:46|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 "Directive re-emphasizes protecting your own butt when Washington actively disarms you, but still demands results."

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-07-08 09:56|| 2009-07-08 09:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Again, directives such as this have a disproportionate effect on troops in the field as the instruction is passed from higher to lower and amplified and safe-sided at each level. These directives come as welcomed news to the insurgents I assure you. General McChrystal's "cultural shift" rhetoric is quite revealing. Recent and future coalition casualty figures in the region may reflect, in my opinion, this feckless, politically motivated approach.

Do SOF forces operate under the same ROE? I suspect they do the memo says "all coalition forces." SOF FOBS have returned fire with organic 105mm Howitzers in the past. This will all be very interesting to follow.

I hope I am WRONG and we begin to see peace breaking out all over Afghanistan.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-07-08 10:17|| 2009-07-08 10:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Let's remember that one of the things Petreaus did when he lead the change in Iraq was to remove all the tacked on subordinate directives to the ROEs that constrained the troops from engaging the enemy. The command structure attitude became CYAWP because of the perceived modus operandi of the leadership. Unless McChrystal makes sure that kind of corporate behavior doesn't take hold in the next lower levels of command, he is indeed going to repeat the mistake that lead to situation that required the surge in Iraq.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-07-08 11:15|| 2009-07-08 11:15|| Front Page Top

#4 I assume SOF going after High Value Targets face a different benefit cost equation from Marines securing a district. If you need to blow up a compound and kill 50 civilians to secure a village, one has to ask if securing that village at that time is worth the cost. If you are going kill Baitullah Mehsud, OTOH .......

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-07-08 11:17|| 2009-07-08 11:17|| Front Page Top

#5 If you need to blow up a compound and kill 50 civilians to secure a village, one has to ask if securing that village at that time is worth the cost.

One, you aren't going to know whether you're going to kill 50 civilians when attacking a compound, or end up killing 50 Marines if you don't.

Two, the concern here is whether there is going to be 'additional insurance' padded on to an existing ROE. I've not heard one way or the other, but it is a valid concern.

This concern is neither formed in a vacuum, or a knee-jerk reaction LH. Troops have taken casualties because of it. An example of safe-siding an ROE is the attack on the Marine compound in Lebanon. There are many other instances (a couple of which I've experienced).

Posted by Pappy 2009-07-08 13:11|| 2009-07-08 13:11|| Front Page Top

23:10 Sockpuppet of Doom
23:09 CrazyFool
22:55 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:46 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:43 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:23 Classical_Liberal
22:15 GirlThursday
22:12 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:08 Don Vito Crolutle2068
21:48 Ptah
21:46 ed
21:43 Frank G
21:35 ExtremeModerate
21:22 Barbara Skolaut
21:18 Pappy
20:53 Besoeker
20:49 Alaska Paul
20:47 Besoeker
20:45 Frank G
20:25 Besoeker
20:23 trailing wife
20:23 airandee
20:22 SteveS