Afghanistan ROE

[SASless]

I know the new ROE's now in effect in Afghanistan have been designed to reduce civilian casualties with a view towards preventing a growth in resistance to deployed forces.

My question is simply have we gone too far and thus have handicapped our Troops to the detriment of their safety and the ability to apply adequate firepower and choice of weapons to a particular tactical situtation?

I understand we are confronted with a hostile force that dresses like civilians, use villages as support bases, and mingle with civilians to prevent our forces from responding to their attacks.

Is it time to give this up or do we still have the ability to turn this thing around and achieve the lofty goals our national leaders proclaim?

An example of what makes me wonder about this......

An AFP photographer with a US Marines unit five kilometres (three miles) northeast of Marjah said insurgents could be seen planting IEDs on roads around a strategic junction and were subjecting the Marines to an almost constant barrage of mortar and rocket fire from nearby residential compounds.

Under their rules of engagement, the Marines were not able to retaliate, the AFP photographer said, until all residents had fled the area.

[vecvechookattack]

Not at all. Just look at rule 410 (and 310) and that will explain a great deal

[BEagle]

I understand we are confronted with a hostile force that dresses like civilians, use villages as support bases, and mingle with civilians to prevent our forces from responding to their attacks.

Pretty much like the Viet Cong - or PIRA for that matter....

[SASless]

Beags.... Very much like the VC local militia but not at all like the NVA main force units....armor, artillery, air force, air defenses, transportation corps and the like.

Afghanistan cannot be compared to Ireland or Vietnam as they are all different kettles of fish.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

I suspect it's all a bit late.

We've already killed lots of innocents and the damage is done.

If the new ROE had been in place from the start on the other hand, then maybe we could claimed to have learned from the likes of Vietnam.

Once bitten. Twice bitten.

[BenThere]

We've already killed lots of innocents and the damage is done.


Were they innocents? How do you know?

The true innocents are those who at least attempt to not inflict harm upon uninvolved civilians. The huge problem we have faced since this conflict began is how to avoid killing the people our enemy has hidden among and behind.

Get it through your head, BarbiesBooyFriend, innocent deaths inflicted by our side are unintentional and regretted by us, but welcomed and encouraged by our enemies because they inflame righteous indignation from people like you, whose sentiments, while they may be well meaning, only prolong the agony.

The enemy, evil in intent as well as in its callous disregard of the lives of innocents, is the problem and must be extinguished.

[SASless]

We've already killed lots of innocents and the damage is done.


I am sure we have....just as in any War that has ever been fought by any Nation. Just exactly as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Iraqi Insurgents have done. At least we do not intentionally target the "innocent" as do our opponents.

I would suggest critics of our Troops should at least be fair and criticize the other side with a proportional response re the numbers of innocents intentionally murdered by the various sides.





BBF....I don't know what you know about Vietnam....but I can assure you it has nothing to do with Afghanistan today. They are two entirely different wars with much different idealolgies in conflict. The cast of characters such as the many different factions in Afghanistan society, the different religious beliefs, all of the foreign contributors of money, and intelligence along with arms support vary greatly from Vietnam.

Vietnam was a war of reunification between the North and South which had been split apart by foreign powers, a fight against French. The later American part was confused by the notion we were fighting the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.

The ROE in Vietnam varied during the war....and I know for a fact....the vast majority of us went the extra mile to avoid civilian casualties. There are a lot of myths about Free Fire Zones and all sorts of things but the average GI was not a blood thirsty killer who collected ears off the dead.

The question I posed is all about Afghanistan....not Vietnam. Vietnam was forty years ago and is now history.

My question is how far do we take restricting our ROE before we put our Troops in such a situation they pay in blood for bad policy making? It is quite possible to do that and I certainly pray we do not.

Each morning during the crew briefing.....as per SOP...I read the yellow card with the ROE on them to the crew....it reminded me just how silly they were. As the Aircraft Commander, I had to know where the good guys were, where the bad guys were, exactly where the hostile fire was coming from, determine if we were in danger, whether the aircraft had been hit, any crew hit, be briefed by the gunner(s), confirm what they told me, and then only if I was absolutely certain it was necessary to defend ourselves and simple evasion or leaving the scene would not suffice....could I order the gunner(s) to open fire .

Try that as you are entering a Landing Zone and come under very accurate fire from a couple of machine guns or a group of infantry with small arms or both.....you'd be dead before you met the full requirement.

This is the mindset I am referring to.....lawyers and Generals writing policies that sound darn good on paper but fail the Troops where the shovel hits the coalface.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Afghanistan cannot be compared to Ireland or Vietnam as they are all different kettles of fish.

It has become very unfashionable to draw parallels between NI and Afghanistan. However, a fairly senior chap who has experience of both believes lessons that were learned in NI were not properly looked at since. He was very convincing indeed.

[busdriver02]

SASless, where in the hell did you fly with that restrictive an ROE? North Ireland?

[vecvechookattack]

Bus driver is correct.
Each morning during the crew briefing.....as per SOP...I read the yellow card with the ROE on them to the crew....it reminded me just how silly they were. As the Aircraft Commander, I had to know where the good guys were, where the bad guys were, exactly where the hostile fire was coming from, determine if we were in danger, whether the aircraft had been hit, any crew hit, be briefed by the gunner(s), confirm what they told me, and then only if I was absolutely certain it was necessary to defend ourselves and simple evasion or leaving the scene would not suffice....could I order the gunner(s) to open fire
Thats not ROE. Thats just SOP's very different from the ROE.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

SAS
Sure, there are plenty of differences. There are plenty of similarities too.

In both cases:

1. We are the outsiders
2. In a contraversial war being fought without popular support at home
3. For dubious, intangible benefits.
4. against an indigenous opponent
5. Who chooses when and when not to fight.
6. And soon we'll leave, just like in SEA.

Ben There.

Don't make me laugh. We've bombed wedding parties for pitys sake.

Get it through your head Ben. These 'regrettable' deaths make winning (whatever that means in Afghanistan) impossible.

[SASless]

Those were ROE's for my unit in Vietnam....all nicely printed on a pretty card...did two tours in the same unit. I know what I am talking about!

Call them SOP's or ROE's......it is the same...the rules of engagement as set forth by your command authority.

I did not discuss actual implementation of those Rules.....we kept to the spirit of the Rules but not necessarily the letter of the rules.

I merely point out the fallacy of too restrictive ROE's and the cost in Troop's lives and limbs if poorly constructed and enforced.

[BenThere]

Laughter is good for you, BBF.

Ben There.

Don't make me laugh. We've bombed wedding parties for pitys sake.

Get it through your head Ben. These 'regrettable' deaths make winning (whatever that means in Afghanistan) impossible.

By your logic, wouldn't the more common, regrettable or not as seen by the perpetrator, deaths such as Daniel Pearl's and the many more thousands that don't make the news, under circumstances of real torture and mutilation, and random marketplace bombings of true savagery against innocents - all that - make winning the war by the enemy even more impossible?

[barnstormer1968]

SASless
Can I ask you a quick question.
You Said

The ROE in Vietnam varied during the war....and I know for a fact....the vast majority of us went the extra mile to avoid civilian casualties. There are a lot of myths about Free Fire Zones and all sorts of things but the average GI was not a blood thirsty killer who collected ears off the dead.

Forgetting the first part, do you think many folks see the 'average GI' in that way, or are you just making a point?
I always saw the average GI in a similar light to many other western troops: very often bored, sometimes scared witless, and often feeling unappreciated.
(with those being the negatives, as wherever you are, there can always be something to laugh at, and hopefully some good mates to laugh with).

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Ben

Well, at least I can agree with you about laughing.

There's twelve innocents that won't laugh again in Afghanistan this evening.

[BenThere]

Not to make light of it, BBF, as unintended killing is tragic and damages the cause, but are they truly innocents?

If so, why were there Taliban targets in close proximity to them? Why didn't they eject them from their midst. The people of Afghanistan should come to know that having Taliban or terrorists close to them is dangerous.

The original Bush doctrine held that the enemy are the terrorists and those who harbor them. President Obama, to his credit, has done or said nothing to change that.

Have you read any news items about Taliban attacking schools and killing teachers in front of the students, BBF. How do you feel about that? Are they innocents, too?

[fawkes]

There are two points at issue here - one is that in this sort of insurgency (civil war if you prefer) it is pretty difficult to tell who the enemy is in any case. Is that chap on the mobile phone cueing up an IED or simply talking to his family? It is not simply that OPFOR are not wearing a uniform or following conventional rules - we cannot speak to folk save through an interpreter. It is lack of cultural context that makes the comparison with SE Asia apposite.
If he has no weapon in his his hand, is he still the enemy - possibly: can/should you shoot him - you'd better be damn sure you knew hwt he was up to.

The second problem is even more pernicious: as has been stated earlier, ISAF (or even ANA) caused civilian casualties increase support for the Taleban (and for the politicians making hay out of the conflict): they publicise them widely. On the other hand the Taleban atrocities and "accidental" civilian casualties are not publicised by either side (we are, after all trying to prove how much safer all these foreign troops are making the country).

[barnstormer1968]

I am getting a bit confused about this whole new operation. The TV and radio news are reporting the deaths (and they may well be very tragic) as innocent civilians. I wish to remind the press that there are not just two groups in country, i.e. innocent civilians, and guilty enemy soldiers. There are IMHO innocent civilians, and then guilty civilians, as the Taliban and any other baddies are civilians too. And to save the press and some in this thread from outrage, I will make it easy for you all to tell the difference between the two. Here is the difference: they often dress exactly the same, live in the same houses, are often both armed, and with the same weapons, they use the same roads, both parties often stand or gather in groups, both parties may feel aggrieved against you, both parties may speak the same language, both parties MAY not want you there. Ok here is the clincher, and bearing in ind all of the above, one of the parties may be a legit target, while he is actually carrying out lethal stuff against you. BUT not before, not after, not while he is planning it, and not while he and his mates are celebrating it, not while he is on his way into country to do it, or when he later leaves, to become an innocent civilian again.
Great, now I'm glad that's all clear now.
Yes I am an armchair general, but I am well versed in the theory.;)

[SASless]

Nice theory....what say we deal with reality instead?


Marines said their ability to fight back has been tightly constrained by strict new rules of engagement that make their job more difficult and dangerous. Under the rules, troops cannot fire at people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Corp. Travis Anderson, 20, from Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, stating that his platoon had repeatedly seen men dropping their guns into ditches before walking away to melt among civilians.




"Snipers UP!"

[barnstormer1968]

SASless, can you clarify for me.
You said lets deal with reality, and then used a quote which completely agreed with what I typed!

The Brits already make excellent use of snipers, and have even used the mass media to show boat how good they are. To further our non sniper types, we have also just bought some new 7.62 weapons from the U.S.

How is this so different from your quote:

Ok here is the clincher, and bearing in mind all of the above, one of the parties may be a legit target, while he is actually carrying out lethal stuff against you. BUT not before, not after, not while he is planning it, and not while he and his mates are celebrating it, not while he is on his way into country to do it, or when he later leaves, to become an innocent civilian again.
Great, now I'm glad that's all clear now.

[SASless]

Recent news reports state "an Armored Column was held up by Sniper teams (Taliban sniper teams)....and one team got to within about 155 feet before opening fire on our troops."

Now I ask you.....snipers holding up an Armored Column? Bradleys and LAV's have 25mm guns....Abrams have 120mm guns. I would suggest there are ample methods of ending that threat in seconds if the ROE would allow it.

It might be a bit hard on the housing they were hiding in....but then the threat would be terminated and the advance could continue.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Ben

My mistake. They were plainly enemy.

Even though our own lot said that a couple missiles veered off course and hit a bunch of folk 300 yards away. And the truck based missiles used have been stood down.

It reminds me of another Vietnam ism. 'If he's (or she's) dead and Vietnamese...they're VC'

So according to you, if anyone gets killed; 'Hey, they was probably baddies anyways'.

You know. Thats why your lot will never win a counter-insurgency campaign in your trigger-happy lives.

[BenThere]

So according to you, if anyone gets killed; 'Hey, they was probably baddies anyways'.

Classic straw man, BBJ. I never said or thought any such thing. In fact, can you point me to a quote where anyone ever said that?

My point, which I am happy to expand upon for you, was that it is important for Afghanis to realize that having Taliban and terrorist presence among them is risky, and should become increasingly so. If they perceive the risk of being close to them is greater than the risk of standing up to them, or at least fleeing them, it will be real progress in the battle. If opposition force are thus isolated, they become much more vulnerable and the risk to uninvolved civilians diminishes.

A key point is that as the enemy operates outside Geneva combattant legality, the 'civilian' designation loses some of its meaning. They would all claim to be civilians, but they are something else.

Thats why your lot will never win a counter-insurgency campaign in your trigger-happy lives.

We seem to have won Iraq for the most part, though, haven't we?

[barnstormer1968]

SASless.
If that post was to me, I still think we are agreeing.
I pointed out that one group of 'civilians' are very rarely guilty (as in for very short periods of time*), and hoped I did not need to spell it out in small words how that worked out in theatre, in more detail.

You will not find me saying the current ROE are the best ones (and in fact, I have been criticised for calling for stronger ones).

*the taliban only come into the 'guilty position' for short periods of time, purely because of the current ROE. I'm sure even they find our ROE a bit hard to believe, especially when compared to theirs. As I say, I am versed in the theory of this (but not the actuality of Afghanistan), after having experience of another group of baddies whom had over thirty years to absolutely perfect the tactic of exploiting Brit ROE, and even used our court system and our solicitors to beat us!

As an aside, surely the whole purpose of snipers, is that a couple of them can hold up a convoy quite easily (but of course, in the usual scenario, the enemy convoy are shooting back:})

[BenThere]

The way I read your post barnstormer was that you and SASless, as well as I are pretty much on the same page.

It's ironic, isn't it, that unrealistic ROE limitations are largely driven by our own internal opposition and sensitivity to press sensationalism. It has a real impact on the mission and costs our soldiers dearly. A latter day Patton, or a Bomber Harris is called for.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Ben

Iraq: 'Declare Victory- and leave'.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by winning. Time will tell, on that one.

Personally I think calling it a US victory is stretching it somewhat. I haven't EVER heard the US declare itself to have won in Iraq (except GWB on that carrier years ago!)

I see another 5 civilians were killed today in an airstrike that went wrong. Guess that makes them the enemy, right?

"but are they truly innocents?" as you put it.

How the f*ck would you know! You psychic or something?

[Grabbers]

Barbie

Are you feeling better now?

http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/402085-conked-out.html
:ok:

[SASless]

BBF,

You wound the host to carve out a cancer do you not? What is different about this?

War is never as surgical as desired....but the UK would be speaking German and eating schnitzel if Allied Forces were using the ROE in place now for Afghanistan.

Ask the French about Caen and a few other cities that were intentionally bombed to rubble by the Allies.

[BEagle]

the UK would be speaking German and eating schnitzel

And that's worse than 'spamspeak' and McDonalds?

Choose your metaphors with care, I would venture to suggest.

[BenThere]

And that's worse than 'spamspeak' and McDonalds?


We merely provided a path which you may choose to follow or not. The WWII options presented were much more coercive.

[BEagle]

And just why do you expect people to follow 'your' path?

[BenThere]

Choose your own path, as I said. I have no expectations at all. You can choose Sharia for all I care.

[taxydual]

This is turning into handbags at dawn!

Steady girls.

Remember, debate is healthy, but backbiting..............................

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Grabbers

Yes thank you. Felt great as soon as I woke up!:ok:

SAS I'll tell you whats wrong. You're wounding the host ok, but encouraging the Cancer!

The whole thing in Afghanistan is a crock. We're there to 'prevent the Taliban sheltering terrorists' OK.

So are we making more terrorists? Yup.

Whats to stop AQ hiding somewhere else? Nothing.

Are we stirring the hornets nest? Yup.

To what end? We have no idea.

Are they about to give up? I don't think so, although they might if we buggered off!

Like in Iraq.:rolleyes::rolleyes: