Anybody paying any attention at all knows that the current Rules of Engagement that our Troops have to work under in the GWOT are getting coalition Troops killed. That is the basic truth.
A few days ago, I referenced an American Veteran's thoughts on this state of affairs, in a column called
On the Path to Defeat.From
War On Terror News:[...]
There has been a lot of criticism about the "Rules of Engagement" in Afghanistan. There have been times when it was reported that Troops were not authorized to have magazines in their weapons. There have been times when air assets could not fire within 250 meters (or some other distance) from a manmade structure. Artillery support has been denied Our Troops when they were going into the heart of enemy territory. The Administration mandated that all night operations be approved by an Afghan court. There have been times when US Troops were told to disarm so their disarmed Afghan colleagues would not feel slighted while in the presence of Leon Panetta. ..(source)
This nonsense of bending over backwards so as not to offend our Afghan "colleagues" has now gone beyond the ridiculous, to the point that the daily news more often than not has OUR kids as fatalities - OUR Troops shot and killed by those very same "Afghan colleagues."
Out of England, comes news of how our Brits are getting around the ROE BS. From the
Independent:
British soldiers resort to 'baiting' Taliban to beat rules of engagement
Platoon commander describes frustration at being forced to lead troops 'to get shot at'
Jonathan Owen 27 August 2012
British soldiers in Afghanistan are being forced to act as bait in an attempt to draw the Taliban into opening fire, a serving platoon commander has alleged.
Soldiers are risking their lives to get round strict rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only if they are being attacked or are in "imminent danger".
The Taliban are increasingly exploiting the rules by hiding weapons in undergrowth near patrol routes – meaning British forces cannot act against them until they actually pick up their guns.
[...]
The number of British soldiers being shot dead in Afghanistan has spiralled as new tactics stop them from shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at. Fourteen have been killed by enemy gunfire in Helmand Province in the past four months, compared with three in the same period in 2011.
Last month it emerged that the US general John Allen, head of coalition forces, had instructed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) not to shoot first unless attacked, although the Ministry of Defence has denied this amounted to a change in the rules of engagement.
In a statement the MoD said: "We have always been very clear, as has ISAF, that our troops go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Recent amendments to the ISAF tactical directive reflect that commitment."
You know there is more, here.
No Military stategist here, but I thought shooting and killing an enemy first - before they kill us - is the whole point of taking the fight to them. This ROE is all well and good for demonstrating our commitment to the Afghan people, but my question is: How about showing a commitment to OUR Troops? Anybody?
(My regular readers knows what my non-verbal editorial comment is on news like this.)
No comments:
Post a Comment