Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement Get Even Worse
BY Herschel Smith
11 years ago
The impossible has happened. The ROE in Afghanistan will get even worse.
The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.
The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.
“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.
Ryan Zinke, who commanded an assault team within SEAL Team 6, said of the security deal: “The first people who are going to look at it and review it are the enemy we’re trying to fight. It’s going to be a document that can be used effectively against us. This is where we either fight or go home. What’s happening is we’re losing our ability to fight overseas.”
As I’ve covered, we never really had the ability in the first place. Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? I’ve covered this almost two years ago. We should have already withdrawn.
Tim Lynch, who has spent more time in Afghanistan than any English-speaking man alive, has told me that we’re “finished” in Afghanistan, and he concurred with my counsel to withdraw.
It was a campaign of state-building waged by the social planners. We should have already pulled all troops out of that God-forsaken part of the world and send in all the social planners who played god with the lives of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. Let them deal with the mess they created.
To Hamid Karzai, prepare for your own demise. Your administration will soon collapse. But not another drop of American blood.
On November 29, 2013 at 11:12 am, Roger J said:
I was against the Afghanistan war from its outset, based on the history of foreign interventions in that region. Twelve years of precious American lives, twelve years of squandered taxpayer treasure, and what has it accomplished? The Taliban will soon be running that country again, just as they were in 2001. This was the ‘just war’ the Democrats were for, and in my opinion, W’s biggest mistake.
On December 1, 2013 at 5:33 pm, JB said:
The initial war was fine. We won by late 2002-early 2003. The problem was not enforcing any kind of rules the Afghan government should live by. We let them (the corrupt) make the rules. We were in too big of a hurry to say the Afghans were in charge. Instead of creating a working government as we did in Germany or Japan we turn the key’s back over to the same people that have screwed up their countries future in the past.
On December 1, 2013 at 5:56 pm, Herschel Smith said:
JB,
Right. And the sad part is that it could have been different.
On December 6, 2013 at 8:39 am, Julie Cochrane said:
We need to leave. Of course the Taliban will be back in charge soon, or a strongman dictator will, or the current regime will become a harsh, strongman dictator. That’s actually an acceptable, though unpleasant, outcome.
When my child was small, what I taught her about fist fights was that if a bully hurt her and she punched him in the nose, no matter whether the bully hurt her more or less, the _bully_ still felt pain in his nose, immediately after hurting her.
The bully would factor, “I hit Sally Mae and my nose hurt” into his future decisions about whether to pick Sally Mae for a victim. He might bully her again, but he was _less likely_ to pick her as a target, and he would do so _less often_. The experience of pain in his nose would have an inhibiting effect when the possibility came up in future.
The enemy hosted people who “hit” the United States and as a result their nose hurt tremendously. We can go home now. Future “Mullah Omars” will factor in that if you hit the United States in a big way, or harbor people who do, a bunch of your leaders and comrades die. Hitting the United States in a big way brings you more trouble than it’s worth.
They will still posture and say all kinds of nasty things about us, and they will still support people who are making half-assed attempts to hit us. However, those calculations about who to support and how much will always be balanced by experience of “ouch.”
We may have to go back, but it was never a practical strategy to try to ensure we never, ever had to go back. Practical strategy is to ensure that they’d rather farm poppies and sell us heroin and get cash than kill our people.
The almighty dollar is our best ambassador. Everyone who hates us and doesn’t want us still wants little green and black portraits of our dead presidents.
We’ve accomplished the military objectives that are reasonably possible to accomplish. Time to come home.
On December 6, 2013 at 8:49 am, Julie Cochrane said:
Also, our military capabilities have changed. Our “standard” response will never again be to fire a couple of cruise missiles that hit a stray sheep and forget about it.
Our “standard” response if we don’t actually want to send in troops will be to drop armed drones from the bellies of bombers from high altitude, then have auxiliary pilots on board the bombers direct the drones in targeted attacks against the people giving the orders.
It isn’t one hundred percent effective, it isn’t guaranteed to get the Big Guy of the moment. However, it is guaranteed to make his nose hurt, which is all we really need.
They’ll still be hostile, but it’s the difference between, “Sell you decadent fools lots of heroin so you’ll destroy yourselves, mwahahaha (let me count the money),” hostile versus “blow up skyscrapers full of civilians” hostile.
Concrete, achievable, militarily adequate objective.