Will Petraeus Change Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan?
General David Petraeus, who led the change in counterinsurgency tactics that broke the back of the Sunni insurgency and Iranian-backed Shia militias in the Iraq war, has just been confirmed by the Senate to become the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Petraeus stepped down from his position as commander of United States Central Command — responsible for operations in 20 countries and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — to focus exclusively on trying to win what has now become America’s longest continuing war.
Petraeus stepped in to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who resigned last week after he and members of his staff criticized and mocked civilian leadership in a Rolling Stone article.
Even before General Petraeus was named to be McChrystal’s replacement, pundits and servicemen alike began wondering if the next commander would consider modifying the current rules of engagement (ROE) in the region. Part of the criticism leveled at McChrystal during his tenure as commander in Afghanistan were rules of engagement that were designed to reduce civilian casualties, even as those rules put servicemen in greater jeopardy.
To encourage NATO troops serving in Afghanistan to hold their fire until it was absolutely necessary, McChrystal had been considering awarding medals for “courageous restraint.” That concept had been proposed by British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the NATO commander of troops in southern Afghanistan:
The idea of using awards as another way to encourage soldiers to avoid civilian casualties came from a team that advises NATO on counterinsurgency, or COIN, doctrine, said an official with knowledge of the process. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal is still under review.
“We routinely and systematically recognize valor, courage and effectiveness during kinetic combat operations,” said a statement recently posted on the NATO coalition’s website by the group, the Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team.
“In a COIN campaign, however, it is critical to also recognize that sometimes the most effective bullet is the bullet not fired,” it said.
The concept of “courageous restraint” has not been received warmly by warfighters, many of whom are far more receptive to the quote attributed to another iconic American general played by George C. Scott in the movie Patton: “No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.”
William Osborn, no doubt, shares those sentiments. Subject to the rules of engagement authorized under General McChrystal, Osborn’s son, Spc. Benjamin Osborn, was part of a military unit that was forced to wait to engage Taliban fighters confronting his MRAP on June 15. When finally allowed by his commanders to fire, Specialist Osborn manned his machine gun, only to be cut down after firing just ten rounds.
The present American military’s Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan should really be called the fastest way to kill and wound American fighters and lose every battle.
Obviously the US ROE are based on the premise that the lives of enemy fighters and their family and friends are more valuable than the lives of American fighter.
This is unfortunately the ROE that Israel fights under and is why Israel cannot definitively win any of it’s wars, battles, or even fire fights.
The American military believes that these primitive, savage, hopelessly ignorant, and impoverished Afghans appreciate the deep concern that allows them to live while American fighters die.
Let me break the harsh and accurate news to you, the Afghans believe that anyone so fearful of killing their enemy and his family and friends is weak, pathetic, and cowardly, and deserves no respect at all.
The Afghans do not see American fighters like this as warriors, they see them as old women in pants.
I hoped that Gen. Petraeus would be courageous enough to fight like a man, a true military soldier, not cave in to the weakened leaders surrounding him. I see no sign of a true War. He has just insisted on the use of the word, “War.” I guess it was but an empty request.
Dear Dr. Bones,
Did you ever want to become a Rear-Colonel — like Neocomrade (seventh class) R. X. Owens, but far better at the RC game, naturally — when you grew up, sir?
I cannot say that I did, and to this very late day I find it impossible to keep my mind fixed on a piece of Mil. Hist. as if it were about something interesting and important. This bad attitude, however, I can recognize as more a fact about me than a proper Social Construct, an idiosyncrasy to be classified with liking the work of Citizen Dvorák more than one is supposed to and utterly not seeing the point of Freelord G. von Mahler’s movie-music-but-never-any-movie.
Still, perhaps even this coarse and illiterate keyboard could have been accomodated. rearcolonelship seems to be a very flexible racket. Why, right here at Pajama Junction, there is the ever-effulgent V. D. H. Blimp, he of the admirably approprate Christojudæan name! [1] Old Vic may not know a great deal about the violence profession of any period later than that of Thucydides, but does at least have the early period nailed. Criucified, even.
And here, six or eight or thirteen or … steps down the Great Scale of Wingnuticity from the incomparable Blimp, slogs the NC7 RXO neomechanism. Decidedly not a Rear Col. for Air is R. X. Owens! But so what? They also rearserve who only sit an’ slog.
You were good enough to observe once, Dr. Bones, that only kiddies like to play with cast-lead soldiers. The maxim is very doubtful, unless you meant it strictly literally. Though he scribbles for a structly kiddie-selfservative audience (it appears), the inexorable Blimp is itself no kiddie, but very manifestly a Freelord. True, VDHB aspires to be a Kiddiemaster by profession as well as a Freelord by the grace of Father Zeus and Mother Moira — all that downdumbed scribblin’ of his would be inexplicable otherwise. ’Tis not Blimp’s fault, I presume, that his Party base-an’-vile should not resonate to neo-Thucydidean drumbeatin’s very reliably.
Bein’ preëminently kiddielike and self-servicin’ (plus no doubt Greekless), NC7 R. X. Owens could easily attain a better rapport with the target audience, no matter how inferior a neomechanism to VDHB it may be technically. Remember that cardinal lesson alleged to be taught in all the tonier academies of Professional Violence: the competent officer does not have to do the correct thing in an emergency, it suffices for Colonel Dupa to do SOME ONE PARTICULAR thing, sound or silly, and above all not dither around like Adlai Stevenson with half her brain tied behind her back.
Rear-Colonel S. A. Kierkegaard must surely be the ultimate fount and source of that scrap of lore. Even if not, invocation of the nomen clarum should put one on notice that “Think twice before hesitating!” is not in itself an instance of kiddiedom, or of reaction, or of militant extremist Hyperzionism, or of any other mental illness. Or even, necessarily, of self-service.
It appears that “Think twice before hesitating!” is pretty much what this morning’s cut-rate pajamatarian has in mind when it natters about “if the next commander would consider modifying the current rules of engagement (ROE).” Hesitatin’ to shoot (or bomb, or strafe), that is, naturally.[2]
On the other hand, who ordered “successful counterinsurgency doctrine [3] requires that the military forces gain the goodwill of the population they are there to protect”?
Come to think of it, can the NC7 RXO mechanism seriously suppose that Áfghánestán has been invasionized in order to protect the Natives thereof? If that neoprinciple were consistently worked out, two-thirds or three-quarters of the whole planet would have to be abandoned to Dr. Gen. Petræus of Princeton and West Point. Anywingnut that thinks *that* sounds like a nifty scheme ought to have a word with Neocomrade P. G. Peterson, Freelord Concord in the peerage of Foxcuckooland, about what implementation of it would cost: The Bad Poor could not possibly pay for it alone, the Middle Class would undoubtedly have to be overtaxed as well.[4]
At the end, the neomechanism rambles off into a secret-sector dreamworld all its own and can scarcely be said to be rearcolonelin’ it in the Naked Public Square (Pat. Pend.) any longer.
Before disappearin’ out of sight ’round the bend, though, it twice offers the curious opinion that nobody will ever know for sure what Neocomrade Dr. Gen. D. H. Petræus is really up to out there in the boondocks of the world. Why on G*re’s green earth not?
That blatant baloney does, after a fashion, fit in with the Weltanschauung of Big Management. G.O.P. Geniuses ought logically to want ALL Big Management to be 111% unaccountable and irresponsible! Even, if possible, completely opaque in all their doin’s.!! What’s good for Acne Widget at South Succotash WY must be equally good for the Dr. Gen. at Kábul and Qandahár!!!
Hence one can understand how a Party-an’-AEIdeology dingaling might *wish* for “Exact rules of engagement … rarely (if ever) made public” and “We may never know the exact rules that General Petraeus puts into effect.”
However, it takes a really outstandin’ neodingaling to expect to actually *get* that sort of wish. [5]
But Bellona knows best.
And I wish you, sir,
Happy days through affordable healthcare.
___
[1] Did not Blimp’s Party-an’-Ideology soulmate MacArthur Minor prophetically announce, “There can be no substitute for Victor Davis?” Or words to that effect?
[2] It matters a great deal, I suspect, in the case of the NC7 RXO mechanism that the good folks to be shot and bombed and strafed unhesitatin’ly should be only Natives and not Real People.
Whether that factor matters to the neomechanism itself is unclear, however. Who knows, perhaps it nattered exactly the same natterin’ back when M. Brezhnev was the bogey du jour? That stance would at least have looked courageous in 1980, insofar as the Lenin-Gorbachev Racket possessed some serious teeth to bite back with, several orders of magnitude more teeth than can sanely be attributed to The Islamophalangitarian Menace™ as a whole, let alone to its local chapter in the Brave New Áfghánestán.
[3] WHAT “successful counterinsurgency doctrine,” pray?
[4] Mais que sçay-je? Possibly the textbooks of Successful Counterinsurgency Doctrine presume absolutely unlinited fundin’? And possibly unwaverin’ public enthusiasm for colonial projects as well.
Doctrinaires have a way of making ideal assumptions, after all, that can lead them well away from the former Real World.
[5] To fully satisfy the NC7 RXO mechanism, it looks as if the successful prosecution of colonial campaigns requires not only unlimited financial resources and infinite popular support, it requires that neither the funders nor the bleeders ever ask Big Management any impertinent questions about what it is doin’ out there in the boonies.
Grotesque though that tripe is, yet it does reflect an important truth for colonialisers and imperialists and Hyperzionizers in a fun-house mirror fashion: the less public attention drawn to their enterprises, the better. “Softly, softly, catchee monkey!”
Well, that screed was nothing like getting to the point.
I assume that you had fun writing it since nobody will waste time reading the entire contents.
It’s worth noting the racist self-identifies himself in the last line…
I wasn’t aware that anyone read any of JHA’s screeds. Regardless of length.
JHM:
Good days work. You just proved that there is no upper limit on idiocy.
Dude… wait, what?
JHM dba #2 Mahatma GhadiLib said, “Americans must die so savages we profess to care about may live”. A deep baloney truth and one freaks all over the world with too much time on their hands, too much water on their brains, and who sneak away from their cells in the funnyhouse to post affected but schizophrenic gibberish enjoy conning themselves with.
Maybe it wasn’t GhandiLib, might have been FDR.
Sure, it’s always the Jews. I understand the theory, strained as it is, that Israel might gain from a Shiite Iraq under Sharia law and US military protection.
No, I guess I don’t.
Now, what is the Left’s theory on Israel and The Jewish Conspiracy’s benefit from US pacification of the Taliban? Is it that the IDF trembles at the thought of Ayman al-Zawahiri crossing the Jordan with al-Qaeda’s best.
When I wonder which percentage of the world is psychotically anti-Semitic, I never come up with a figure larger than 50% or so.
A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.
In this case that link is Barack Obama.
The truly effective way to reduce civilian casualties over time is to have rules of engagement enable the military to use fire whenever the senior soldier on the spot thinks it makes sense.
Combined with identifying the population, photographing them and putting them into a database, over a couple or three years the non-bad guys (best we can hope for there) can be separated from the bad guys and methodically killed unless they convincingly become non-bad guys.
Restraint in war is almost always a mistake.
General David Petraeus can change all of the rules that he wants. Without a clear strategy and, especially, a clear objective, this war is going nowhere fast. All the Taliban and al Qaeda have to do is hide in the hills and the mountains and wait. What is that old Middle Eastern saying? “You may have all the watches but we have all the time.” Think long and hard about that. Unless you want to make Afghanistan the 51st state and stay there forever, all the enemy has to do is wait until the United States grows weary and leaves. They’ve done it before with the Russians, who were much more ruthless than us, and they will do it again with the United States.
Someone still has not explained to me what our objective is in Afghanistan. Is it to defeat the Taliban? Well, what does that mean? Do we want the Taliban to come into Kabul one day and sign a peace treaty with us? Even if they do, what will that be worth in a place like Afghanistan, where one’s word doesn’t really count for much? As soon as we draw down our troops the Taliban will move in, just like the North Vietnamese did in Vietnam 35 years ago in 1975. What will victory look like in Afghanistan? Do we want Afghanistan to, politically speaking, look like Indiana? What is an “acceptable” form of government in Afghanistan for the United States?
We are chasing shadows in Afghanistan. Iraq was a very, very, different country than Afghanistan and Petraeus knows it. The best we can hope for is an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan where we maintain a few bases so that we can launch the occassional attack against the Taliban and suspected al Qaeda targets. Unless we’re willing to do this and stay there for the next 40 years, we should leave.
We should be making our stand in Pakistan, where most (if not all) of al Qaeda is located. We should be working with their democratically elected government (who has just as much to lose in this as we do) to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda on Pakistani soil. I know, I know, Pakistan and the ISI are riddled with corruption as well as Taliban sympathizers. But at least we have a fighting chance there in a country that is somewhat modern, has at least a few people that actually support democracy and have a background in it, whose population is somewhat educated, and has a working Army and infrastructure that could actually be used to defeat the Taliban.
Will this mean that Afghanistan will simply fall to the Taliban again? Probably, but there isn’t much we can do about it unless we’re willing to stay and fight there forever. All we can do is apply enough pressure from Pakistan to convince the Taliban in Afghanistan that attacking the United States just isn’t worth the price. That’s about as good as it gets in that part of the world.
Great point, Libertyship.
Going into Pakistan is the only thing that is going to yield up a real victory which means, in this case, the obliteration of the Al Qaeda/Taliban in Central Asia. If we only had the will.
Here’s the thing I do not understand. Right after the 9-11 attacks, former President Musharraf stated that the U.S. came to him and gave Pakistan an ultimatum: help us oust the Taliban in Afghanistan, i.e., join us in this fight against Al Qaeda or we are at war with one another and will take you out. Pakistan wisely opted to cooperate. To a point. The Pakistanis have been very clever in cooperating up to a point at which they are able to reap billions of dollars of aid from the U.S. but still allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to have safe havens and ample supply in the rugged Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. They are playing both sides of this. That has to stop.
Unless and until there is a U.S. administration that is willing to go back again to Pak leaders with another ultimatum (“We ARE taking out all of the Al Qaeda/Taliban sanctuaries in the FATA and any Pak units that try to interfere will be obliterated…”) then we are just playing games. Worse, we are allowing ourselves to be slowly bled as we pour lives and money down an impossible strategy. Pakistan’s FATA are the key. If we cut off the safe havens decisively, the Taliban are through. And don’t think that the local population in the FATA would not applaud such a move. They are virtual hostages to the Taliban thugs that have moved in.
Your assessment is right on. I don’t see this as winnable in the near term of less than 10-15 years – and a heavy investment in education.
We have never clearly stated exactly what it is we wish to accomplish in Afghanistan. Total victory would be difficult if not outright impossible without killing everyone. Karzi seems more interested in making money while the making is good than pursuing any definable goals. And throwing money at the Afghan people to win them over lasts about as long as the money flows. And the threat of a bullet is stronger than any notion of national unity. That has never been a strong suit in that country. Religion trumps all.
The American Legion mag has a couple of articles named ‘The Seeds of a New Afghanistan’ (May Issue part I) and ‘Small dollars big Impact’ (June Issue part II) – and about what is called the ADT’s (AgriBusiness Development Team – US National Guard Project) efforts at making life better for the Afghan farmers in the Khost province. Small $ projects add up over time – the big question is whether these efforts and expenditures will have any lasting effect on a population that goes with whomever has the money in hand right now. I have severe doubts about winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of a people as backward as these people are. Their religion have made them pliable to external forces. No matter the forces – money or guns – we can’t stay there forever – and efforts such as
I favor a strategy that weakens the Taliban/Al Quida – then get out – but keep an eye on the activities in the country. We have already weakened them about as much as possible. With money and arms flowing from Iran – and who knows – Syria? Russia? China? we’ve done about as much as we can unless we can further engage the Pakistanis to help on their side of the border – who seem disinterested in further incursions into the tribal lands. Without permission to let US troops into the border areas the bad guys simply cross the border and sit and wait.
It seems the best we can do is lob the occasional cruise missile or two to keep things to a quiet roar when appropriate and keep contacts well supplied with intel gathering capabilities to let us know when to lob those missiles.
You make some very valid points concerning the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve read a few books produced by our military on the Soviet-Afghan war, “The Bear went over the Mountain” and “The Other side of the Mountain”, and came away with the strong impression that the average Afghan views himself as a member of a clan and village first and an Afghan a distant last. Except for the large cities, there is very little sense of national unity. This dictates a completely different approach than in countries with a national identity, ie Iraq and Pakistan. Unless, as you say, we are willing to stay until Afghanistan becomes Indiana, our best approach would be to maintain a few bases in-country for the purposes of “punitive expeditions”. If the Taliban builds a base or shows its face, go in and kill them with overwhelming firepower and then leave. To H with the “nation building”. It cannot be done in Afghanistan.
Rules of Engagement, Winning Hearts and Minds, Command-Level Tactical Decision Making…..
Why not start some peace talks…. say …. in Paris?
Any chance of achieving a “victory” was flushed when the amateur-hour-administration announced a withdrawal date. While Washington parses words over what this means, I guarantee the Afghans know the true meaning:
The U.S. under Obama is a Cut-and-Run nation.
Our counter insurincy efforts worked very well in Vietnam. They didn’t start for real until Abrams took over from Westmoreland in ’68. By the end of ’71, the hamlets were secure, all the population centers of South Vietnam were safe, and it was the South Vietnamese Army doing the majority of the fighting. Then we left, broke all our promises, and turned our back on Vietnam – while the Communists kept their supply lines to the North wide open.
Afghanistan isn’t Vietnam unfortunately. The Karzai national government is a corrupt failure. Their Army and police are still a joke after 8 years. The towns and villages are not cooperating. Time for a big adjustment and showing weakness is never the way to earn respect in the Muslim world.
I am a bit confused. The ROE are referred to as “McChyrstal’s” but I thought Petraeus was his boss. In other words, I thought the ROE came from the top. Hope someone explains.
They came from the top, that being the National Command Authority. In plain English, that means;
1. The President.
2. The Secretary of Defense.
3. The Secretary of State.
Generals do not set policy; they carry it out. Politicians create policies, and ROEs are part of those policies.
Which means that whether The One likes it or not, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops at his desk.
clear ether
eon
America has not fought a WAR since 1941. We’ve been saddled with nothing but liberal dingleberries who haven’t the balls to do what it takes to WIN. Can we win in Afghanistan? Yes. But what it will take we’re not willing to do. So, let the backwater crap-hole fall. That’s what I said. LET IT FALL. If the locals don’t like being ruled by Mr. Taliban, LET THEM FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES.
It is populist myth that “General David Petraeus … led the change in counterinsurgency tactics that broke the back of the Sunni insurgency and Iranian-backed Shia militias in the Iraq war.”
He certainly had an effect in Baghdad and other locations. The Sunni insurgency in Anbar was different. The things that the U.S. Marine Corps had put into place began to reap benefits even before Petraeus came on the scene in February 2007. Petraeus, his succesor and his predecessor, had little effect on what happened in the Anbar Province. That was primarily a Marine Corps operation.
The Anbar awakening certainly improved conditions on the ground for COIN operations, but it was the dramatic shift in tactics, on both diplomatic and military fronts, so skillfully implemented by Petraeus and Crocker which ultimately saved the day. Pulling troops outside the defensive perimeters of large bases and distributing them among the general population, while simultaneously mounting aggressive take and hold missions in an ever tightening belt around Baghdad, was absolutely central to the astonishing turn around we witnessed in Iraq. Unfortunately, we seem to be seeing the first without the second in Afghanistan.
Clear and reliable protection of civilians is a cornerstone of COIN operations which, by their very nature, put our own soldiers at greater risk until civilian confidence starts paying off in an increasing flow of critically important intelligence. This requires more restrictive ROE for those in direct contact with the general population. We now appear to have severely tested the limits of such restraint, and on the basis of that experience, I am sure Petraeus will assess and adapt as speedily as possible. Surely even Obama can see the writing on that wall, given his own instinct for survival in the short, if not long, term.
Unlike McChrystal, Petraeus has the President’s ear and his respect. Indeed, I suspect the politically savvy General may have managed to work himself into the role of mentor — as has Secretary Gates, I believe. Obama is clearly backing away from his date certain withdrawal. The jury is still out on whether that cautious repositioning will prove too little, too late, but if anyone is in a position to build upon conditions as he finds them, it’s Petraeus.
Alas, the importance of Ryan Crocker’s unflagging work in Iraq has been vastly underrated. In reality, Obama’s poor judgment in his civilian appointees may be more to blame for the downward Afghanistan trajectory than his ambivalence. Holbrooke has been a complete disaster, and Eikenberry more adversary than partner. I can only hope that Petraeus’ own diplomatic skills may prove redemptive, because I don’t see Obama admitting failure on that front by giving them the ax any time soon. I doubt that Holbrooke in particular, would give up his seat at the table without a fight, and I’m sure Obama must realize that Holbrooke has made a career of covering his own ass and currying favor with folks in high places.
A few, “nit picky” corrections, JM.
With reference to your remark that we are seeing COIN put into place similar to Iraq, no. We are not. The vast majority of forces in A-stan are on FOB’s and have always been on FOB’s. The only ones who are not on FOB’s (or other, similarly ‘max protect’ bases) are the Marines in Helmand province.
Your contention that greater contact with the population requires more restrictive ROE’s is dubious. The U.S. forces in Anbar and in Baghdad dished out serious firepower, including artillery and close air support and tank rounds, when they took up residence in the neighborhoods, while they continued to reside in the neighborhoods and while they were flushing the scum insurgents out of the neighborhoods without anything like the restrictive ROE’s we see in A-stan. The Iraqis started providing the good intel on the bad guys as soon as the locals were *convinced* that the U.S. was the strong horse and was going to stick around to kill the bad guys.
Your comment about Obama flies in the face of everything we have seen from him, so far. He doesn’t give a hoot for what America thinks or so-called political survival. Obamacare? Major political anchor but he pushed it through. The stimulus fiasco? Huge opposition… he pushed it through. What “popular” policies is he working on now? Hmmmm…Amnesty for illegals. There’s a popular policy. How about Cap and Tax? It is no coincidence that the Dems political fortunes are going down the toilet— Obama is doing the flushing!
Your observation that McChrystal didn’t have Obama’s respect, unlike Petraeus, is patently wrong. Obama hand-picked McChrystal! The fact that Obama treated him like an afterthought, never consulted with him and kicked him around is par for the course with Obama (no pun intended). Heck, he treats everyone who thought they were America’s friend the same way. It’s the despots, tyrants and dictators that he coddles. As for Petraeus…Obama called him a liar in 2007 (along with every, other Democrat). What respect?
Other than these, couple points, though you are correct that the civilian appointees have to go.
So let’s all join together now in one chorus of, “WE ARE DOOMED.”
Yes, I understand that you’re writing the popular meme. It is only partially true, and then, there were many more things that account for the situation in Iraq.
First, to Anbar and the so-called awakening. Primarily, the victory in Anbar came at the expense of more than 1000 Marines who perished. We were winning in Anbar before Petraeus ever came on the scene. He did nothing to change tactics in Anbar. Nothing. It was a Marine Corps operation. They kept doing what they were always doing from 2004.
Help came to Baghdad when Petraeus (and primarily Odierno) brought the same tactics to it that had already worked in Anbar. Many things helped, including getting five or six years of intelligence, mapping the human terrain, saturation presence of U.S. troops, saturation presence at the right time (after AQ had been driven from Ramadi, Haditha and al Qaim, they landed in Fallujah, where hard kinetics, coupling with the IPs, gated communities, and biometrics drove them out, and they couldn’t land in Baghdad because of the troop presence so they landed in Mosul).
But again, the evolution of the campaign was occurring anyway, and while Petraeus was a breath of fresh air, he didn’t do anything magical.
Finally, one highly placed Colonel told me after the fact that “Petraeus came to Iraq with a plan, and that plan was dead on arrival because the logistics officers explained why it was impossible. Petraeus’ genius was that he was able to amend his plan, developed from FM 3-24, to something else.”
There are those who believe and reiterate the myth of the great general who saved the day, and then there are those who know that it was more complex than that meme. Be careful what you believe.
Army Capt. Travis Patriquin and Marine Corps Maj. Megan McClung
could give some perspective on this point, if they had not had
a close encounter of the worst kind with an IED in the city of
Ramadi in al Anbar province; Hail and fare well.
TSAfabet:
I was not equating Afghanistan and Iraq, nor do I believe that COIN operations in one country can be imported wholesale into another. I didn’t contend that the current ROE themselves qualify as the necessary measure of restraint, but rather that they have reached an extreme that I fully expect Petraeus to moderate. The idea that the same ROE are appropriate to both pitched battle and direct engagement with the civilian population, however, is fatuous. I also referred pretty directly to the “serious firepower” in Iraq, as troops took the “belts” around Baghdad (think Diyala, for starters) .
“The only ones who are not on FOB’s (or other, similarly ‘max protect’ bases) are the Marines in Helmand province.”
I’d call that a singularly significant exception when Helmand and Kandahar are the current focus of operations — seen as being absolutely key to Afghanistan mission. As you may recall, we just walked back the planned military push into Kandahar in favor of a civilian push, which strikes me as unnecessarily treating it as an either/or proposition.
My point was that COIN is a complex business with a lot of working parts — a great many of which seem to be MIA in Afghanistan. As for Obama “hand picking” McChrystal, I’d suggest that you’ve fallen for the Presidential I’m-in-charge-here spin. You apparently haven’t noticed that Petraeus has had a seat at the Obama table lo these many months of this Administration.
Herschel:
Petraeus’ genius is indeed, that he can adapt to circumstances on the ground. As the conventional wisdom goes, what plan has ever survived the first engagement? If you think that Petraeus just got lucky and that the Marines never changed their 2004 approach to Anbar, you’ve got a lot of catch-up ball to play.
Joe,
McCrystal’s ROE came from the White House, which is unfortunately the top. Obama is now in a bind, in that his ROE obviously didn’t work, and he can’t afford politically to get crosswise with Petraeus immediately after appointing him. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus is in that honeymoon period where he has a lot of latitude. It will be interesting to see what he does with it.
People in the moslem world have absolutely no respect for weakness and think our “president” is a laughingstock. War is not supposed to be sanitary, it’s supposed to be brutal, barbaric, and messy; precisely the reason to avoid it if at all possible. If moslem fighters continue to dress as women and use human shields; innocent civilians are going to die. There were 3,000 innocent civilians in the World Trade Towers who were neither disguised as women or using human shields. I think an adequate ‘tit-for-tat’ reaction would have been to drop a dirty bomb on the qa’bah while the robots were marching around it.
Whatever happened to the ROE that won WW2?
What you said. Let’s go Dresden on the Islamists. The Germans certainly could not have been defeated by worrying about killing the civilians. Nor the Japanese. And I don’t think the Islamists are any less determined than the aforementioned enemies.
what war? its an overseas contingency, you’re supposed to read them our Miranda rights. if they apologize let them go. you want to beat up all the illegals but you want to let them muslim guys we are war with build a mosque at ground zero. what is wrong with this picture. i miss that Texas cowboy at least he told it like it was “you’re either with us or agin us.
If Petraeus doesn’t change the ROE, we will lose in A-stan in short order. If he does change them but does not alter the strategic plan (i.e. removes timeline for drawdown and departure), then we will lose A-stan in a year or two rather than the next few months. If he changes ROE and plan, then maybe if we and other nations pour blood and treasure into A-stan for, say, 25 years, we might establish something better than stalemate. The fact that he hasn’t announced new ROE or strat plan yet –in the brief afterglow of endorsement from his civilian bosses and when he has lots of media time and attention– suggests to me that he isn’t going to. He’s too smart a man and too good a warrior not to have seized the initiative if he could. So for whatever reason I guess he’s willing to preside over our defeat. Of course, that won’t be the end of it. The Taliban and their guests need to come after us; it’s in their ideology and, now, their list of scores to settle. Next time will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. And the retaliation will be on a similarly horrific scale.
As others have stated, the ROE’s are just the logical consequence of a “strategy” that seeks to use our fighters as “peace keepers” and “nation builders”. They are trained as killers and destroyers, and should be used that way, mercilessly, or brought home immediately. Instead, we have a policy – established under the previous administration, and perpetuated by the present one – that projects weakness and moral uncertainty, and our brave soldiers pay for this with their lives and limbs (and we, with our treasure). The Osborns should sue the military and the Commander in Chief, who are fully responsible for their son’s death. What a waste.
Our foreign policy should be simple and clear – if any nation is unwilling or unable to completely demolish the enemies of freedom in their midst, the U.S. will – at a time and in a manner of our choosing, take care of those enemies as they deserve, and we will do so without regard for the short term safety of any innocent bystanders. Those nations, and those innocent bystanders – *may* become incentivized to do the dirty work first, and that would be fine by us.
War is hell, but we did not start this one. Our job should be to end it as quickly and decisively as we can – and that means (in this case) declaring as our objective the absolute destruction of Al Quaeda and the Taliban, and using our military as destroyers, not builders.
What you say is very sad but it is very true.
But I am under the impression that the liberal media have successfully brainwashed the public opinion and the American People now want to ignore the blood and the suffering that the muslim fanatics will cause to us in the future.
Being that so, the American People will not listen to you. And that is bad.
The enemy will not share our compassion.
And the mad mullahs of Iran are preparing the bombs for us.
It is not at all clear that the Taliban were directly responsible for 911. In any case, the Arab group al-Qaeda was a byproduct of resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and an outlet for Saudi and Gulf ambitions, young indoctrinated men – where they could be ‘safely’ away from causing revolution at home. This is unlikely to happen again in the same way.
That said, I agree that the war is not being fought. However, the real problem is with the sources of Islamic/Jihadist money, ideology and weaponry. Those places would be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. The biggest problem I see with the Iraq invasion is that Saudi Arabia was a partial beneficiary. OPEC was a beneficiary. Even Iran was a direct beneficiary.
Sadly, nearly half the victims of suicide bombings in Iraq, according to many sources, have been killed by young Saudis who, twenty years ago, might have headed to Pakistan. Now they go to kill Iraqis and American soldiers in a war that is somehow a continuation of 41′s war; at least in Bush 43′s mind he was finishing the job that Dad started. And Dad definitely fought for Saudi Arabia. King Fahd called the US soldiers his ‘white slaves.’
The Taliban is a minor enemy, in the cavalcade of Muslim entities. Another besides the states mentioned above is of course energy policy and the extent of energy consumption.
In any case, Obama has no intention of winning in Afghanistan. Neither did Bush. It was even to some extent a fireworks display to distract from his main obsession – Iraq.
I’ve posted this before . . . but for those who haven’t seen it you might find this cartooon funny.
“New Obama Approved Military Rifle” at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/the-politically-correct-militarily-stupid-national-defense-strategy/
The only ROEs Muslim terrorists understand is
1. Shoot on sight; and,
2. Shoot to kill.
Any other ROEs for our soldiers only places them in harm’s way and make us a laughingstock, as is pointed out above.
To add to your Muslim terrorist ROE’s-
1)Shoot on sight and take out as many innocent bystanders as possible.
2)Blow up wedding ceremonies, and the more bus loades of school children the better
3)Shoot missles (from heavily populated neighborhoods) randomly into civilain populations, then blame it on Isreal when they shot back
There, that will get you started….
As eon points out above, ROE usually come from above and outside the actual military.
The true question is akin to the old riddle of “which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” Are we losing in Afghanistan because of our ROE, or are our ROE being changed to make sure that we lose whenever progress is being made? Who is pulling the strings, and what play is the puppet supposed to be performing?
People have advanced the idea that Petraeus might be a viable Presidential candidate for 2012. What better way is there to rub that idea out by tying his and the military’s hands, putting him in charge, and then blaming him for not being able to combat the Taliban with nerf-ball rifles and pamphlets preaching peace and tolerance.
Hey–its the Chicago Way.
Most people don’t realize the problem of ROE is much deeper than any one man (eg, McChrystal) or administration. If you really want to understand the roots of the disastrous policies that kill our soldiers needlessly with crippling rules of engagement, and leave us fighting endless and costly wars of attrition that we never win and which are leaving us bankrupt, I strongly recomment the articles listed below (with excerpts). These policies are being taught to our entire officer corp under such dangerous phrases as “winning the peace” under a moral code that (altruism) that values enemy combatants and civilians more than our own people.
The only solution is a strong moral assertiveness of our *right* as a nation to act decisively to do whatever necessary and whenever to protect ourselves, and that means acting *before* a problem becomes big (like it has with Iran and Islamism). For instance, the moment Iran started training Islamists in Iraq to use IEDs (or even well before — they’ve been the leading state sponsor of terrors for 30 years by our own government’s definition), we should have wiped out the entire Iranian leadership and its military. Now Iran is training the Islamists in Afghanistan — and we’re losing soldiers there. How many Iranian’s have died? Now Iran is building atomic weapons. How many will die because of that?
This disastrous policy is a new form of appeasement that is largely dictated by the Leftists in State, but also now to a great extent by vacillating, peacenik-loving, weak-kneed officers who rise through the ranks by getting graduate degrees in international relations rather than in warfighting. This will cost the lives of millions of Americans unless the problem is understood and the policies reversed.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
“We are losing the war on Islamic Totalitarianism because our leadership, political and military, is crippled by the morality of altruism, embodied in the tenets of Just War Theory. The moral code inherent in Just War Theory defines rules that undercut, inhibit, and subvert any hope of success in war, because it demands that one regard one’s own life as the sacrificial object of others. The moral code of rational self-interest, by contrast, defines principles to attain the values that one’s life and happiness require—including success in war and national self-defense. Altruism is the morality of defeat, and rational self-interest is the morality of victory.”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-summer/william-tecumseh-sherman.asp
“we must judge whether slave states—or medieval theocracies—are morally equal to constitutional republics. Where do we stand? Is the American Republic worth defending in the face of international unpopularity? Should we accept blame for casualties in a war we did not start? What would Sherman do? To those who respect man’s ability to control his destiny using his mind, the answers are morally instructive.
“William Tecumseh Sherman’s defense of his country, his Constitution, and his values offers a great lesson for us. We can preserve our own freedom only if we recognize ourselves as good, and act with clarity, purpose, and resolve. We should observe the parallels to the modern day, including the enemy that brought down the Twin Towers, its subjugation of women and “infidels” to a brutal totalitarian ideology, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And we should consider where we would be today had Sherman compromised with his enemy.”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/american-victory-over-japan-1945.asp
“For those Japanese who wished for an end to the bloodbath, what fell out of the sky on those two days in 1945 were, in the words of Japanese Navy Minister Yonai Misumasa, “gifts from heaven.” Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief cabinet secretary of Japan, said after the war: “The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by Heaven for Japan to end the war.” Okura Kimmochi, president of the Technological Research Mobilization Office, wrote before the surrender:”
(quoted) “I think it is better for our country to suffer a total defeat than to win total victory . . . in the case of Japan’s total defeat, the armed forces would be abolished, but the Japanese people will rise to the occasion during the next several decades to reform themselves into a truly splendid people. . . . the great humiliation [the bomb] is nothing but an admonition administered by Heaven to our country.”
“The tenya—“heaven-sent blessings”—that fell from the sky were indeed gifts, but they were not from heaven; they were from America. In protecting the lives and rights of her citizens, America smashed the infrastructure of Japan’s sacrificial indoctrination machine; this empowered the Japanese to break the chains of tyranny and to drown out the discredited exhortations of the suicidal past. ”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
“Our military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes? Had we removed the Iranian regime in 1979, thousands of Americans would have been saved, and children across the world would not have grown up with sword verses rising in their minds as they give their lives to jihad. Consider the Japanese—and ask whether it would have been in our interest to have left the regime of 1945 in power, to continue preaching religious militarism and training kamikaze. The best thing Americans did for themselves (and, incidentally, the kindest thing for the Japanese) was to burn that regime to the ground. So it is today. The Islamic State—Totalitarian Islam—must go. And it is the moral responsibility of every American to demand it. “
…And today General Sherman, and every American General till at least 1952 are “war criminals”!
As the President said “kick some…”; as I say: or get out…crush the enemy: Islime.
Robb: excellent analysis. (my thoughts exactly) Thank you…
It would be a big mistake to change the rules of engagement. I know the Pajamas Media audience are very attached to the Hollywood idea that you win wars by killing as many people as possible, but that’s never been the case in the real world.
I think a lot of you guys think it’s a good thing when Muslim civilians are killed, and see this as an end in itself, not actually recognising non-combatant status when it comes to Muslims – I’ve certainly read a lot of comments on this site about how super it would be to destroy Islamic countries with nuclear weapons.
The American military has always tended to be a crude and inexpert force, wedded to the clumsy and imprecise expenditure of maximum firepower. There’s nothing heroic, smart or strategic about the unnecessarily killing innocent people – all the legalistic wrangling or historical myth-making in the world can’t change that.
These rules of engagement are necessary, specifically for American troops. They should keep them, and even encourage the one other democratic military in the world that is more indiscriminate than the USA to adopt them too.
And Liberals get all upset when we question their patriotism… Chris W you know nothing of the US military (other than the anti-American crap you learned from hard-left teachers). We have been, and continue to be, the most humane military on earth. We have SAVED more Muslim lives than any other force on earth. Muslim extremists kill more “innocent” muslims, by far!
“I know the Pajamas Media audience are very attached to the Hollywood idea that you win wars by killing as many people as possible”
Get it right Chris W, you win wars by killing as many ‘enemy soldiers’ as possible. The problem is, the Muslim combatants hide behind civilian clothing (not to mention hiding in Mosques, and in civilian neighborhoods), yes, but in your world we are the bad guys.
Care to supply examples of wars won by nuanced, non-violent, caring armies, Chris?
#20
Crap.
“I think a lot of you guys think it’s a good thing when Muslim civilians are killed…”
I always hear liberal Democrats saying that kind of stuff.
You know the same guys who nuked Hiroshima.
Let me be the first to wish everyone a Happy Independence Day!
God Bless America! We need it now more than ever.
these roe’s are just another bad kenyan muslim joke. i’ve heard of hold fire until you see the whites of their eyes, but not until they are sitting in your camp eating your mre’s.
maybe Mccrystal didn’t accidentally let the rolling stone guy ruin him. maybe he didn’t like this kenyan’s crap and wanted out, w/o trying to look like a quitter. like vietnam, the washington polutitions are trying to fight a war from a chair in washington. i think lots of folks old enough and not drinking in the kenyan kool-aid see this happening, again.
btw- i’ve heard sculllebutt that even when engaging the enemy, our troops are not allowed to use fully auto settings to return fire, and are required to fire single shots instead? maybe some military parents should start asking questions as to EXACTLY what these roe really are. i would. don’t know for sure just how bad this crap has gotten, but from experiencing some of his other many fiascos, more very bad tidings can only be around the corner wherever and whenever his nastyness looks down his nose and makes more insane decisions, based on his massive intellect and his decades of experience in such matters.
Hi guys! Those are sources of America’s weakness:
1. 700 billion dollar spent on foreign oil that finances Islamist terrorism and other America’s Islamic enemies.
2. 250 billion in trade deficit with China – a hostile power that uses that imbalance to fund her arms that will one day be turned against the US. Those gigantic money are also used to support and prop up the most barbaric, genocidal regimes and use them as the proxies against the US.
3. 200 billion dollars spent on foreign drugs that finance the Latino-Fascist regimes – sworn enemies of the US and some 100 billion on maintaning the prison population due to the crimes releted to drug prohibition.
Those idiocies result in the US (and to lesser degree in the Europe) giving away between 1,2 – 1,5 billion dollar for the hostile countries for NOTHING!
America will NWVER win any war or any military operation as long she is financing her enemies.
And one has to add to this the monstrous debt that Obama and his criminal communo-fascist cohorts are creating.
In that light the military doctrine chosen by that or another general is an issue of a seconday or even tertiary importance.
There is a President In Waiting though that doesn’t shy away from using that famous Reagan’s phrase: “We win they loose.”
Give HER a chance and elect her. SHE WON’T LET YOU DOWN!
Yo.. BC. You’d commented in another PJM article how well this ROE is being played out. Please.. elaborate.
Rolling Stone and the Sacking of Stan McChrystal Part Two
The oddest thing about President Obama canning General McChrystal as commander of United States forces in Afghanistan is that the general didn’t do anything grievously wrong.
When Lincoln dumped 5 generals (McLellan twice) during the Civil War, it was largely due to general incompetence.
When Truman sacked MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War, it was the last straw in the brilliant yet haughty and insubordinate general’s rocky relationship with his civilian bosses in Washington, and especially with Harry.
The fact MacArthur wanted to invade China and use nuclear weapons to subdue that Communist nation which had intervened and turned the tide in Korea by sheer force of numbers was another factor as was the fear it could ignite a Third World War.
In retrospect, MacArthur’s plan was viable, would not have started a new world war, and would have removed the threat that China poses for the United States in the twenty first century. But that’s another story.
Stanley McChrystal’s chief offense was neither incompetence nor gross insubordination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1774)
Hi there very nice blog!! Man .. Excellent .. Superb .. I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds also?I am satisfied to seek out numerous helpful info right here within the put up, we’d like develop more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .