Rules of engagement killing U.S. soldiers Thanks Longknife

Posted: 12/14/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

You won’t believe new rules of engagement in Afghanistan


Posted: December 13, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern

F. Michael Maloof
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s note: The following story is adapted from a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. Subscriptions to G2 Bulletin are available for $99 a year or for $9.95 per month for credit cards users.

WASHINGTON – New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns the game plan based the rules’ imposed limits.

The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.

Get the complete report on the new rules of engagement with a subscription to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.

The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day

Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn’t holding a weapon.

The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts

, those restrictions include the following:

  • No night or surprise searches
  • Villagers are to be warned prior to searches
  • Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first
  • U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present
  • Only women can search women
  • Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.

Often, rules of engagement require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken. In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.

To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces’ approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack.

Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them.

The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed.

F. Michael Maloof, a frequent G2B contributor, is a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted here.

To get access to the full report, subscribe to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Red 46 says:

    Why would anyone even WANT to join the military knowing they can’t fight for the country once they get to whatever WAR they are sent to? This is so idiotic, it seems to me the best thing that could happen would be for everyone in the military from the TOP down to just QUIT! Shake it all up and start over again without all the political correctness.

  2. Rick M. says:

    Fact of the matter is Obama is a Usurper and is guilty of TREASON and so are those that are the Joint Cheifs. They need to be brought before a court martial!

  3. Longknife 21 says:

    This is so stupid! What next? Nerf bullets?
    Snipers charged with murder for killing a Taliban when he wasn’t holding a weapon at the time? Damn! And I thought some of the stuff the Head-shed idiots pulled on us in Vietnam was idioticaly BAD, but this is off the chart!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s