The Ghost of Robert McNamara is haunting the E ring of the Pentagon.

Afghans Protest New Rules of Engagement

September 28, 2009: The U.S. is increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that the Americans act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman--Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk.

This is an unexpected side effect of a change, three months ago, of the U.S. rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. This was in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders have to decide who they shall respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do?

Of course, Afghan civilians are aware of who is killing most of the civilians, and that's why the Taliban and al Qaeda are moving down in the opinion polls. But the media, hammering foreign troops get every time they kill a civilian, or are simply (often falsely) accused of doing so, led to the ROE becoming far more strict than it ever was in Iraq. Thus one Taliban victory you don't hear much about is how they turned their use of human shields into a powerful, and very successful, propaganda weapon against NATO and U.S. troops, and an excellent way to avoid getting attacked.

Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming civilians.

The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.

The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.

The new restrictions on the use of air power, and the greater Taliban use of civilians as human shields, has enabled the Taliban to avoid a lot of situations where they would otherwise get killed. When they are out in the open, the Taliban still get toasted regularly by foreign troops (with or without the use of smart bombs).

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/a...90928.aspx

(09-28-2009 07:23 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban.

What do you expect from a feckless wimp like Obama? I'm surprised we don't have to read them Miranda. Oh wait, if we capture them, we do.

My best friend is an intel officer in the military and is currently deployed. We have had several conversations about how so many "bad guys" are getting away because of politics. Decision making capability at the ground level has been taken away and by the time they get through red tape their opportunity is gone.

Just one more reason why Obama shouldn't have been voted into office. For someone who has never even held an executive type position, he didn't have a lick of military experience and we desperately needed one with at least something involving the military. Too bad over 50% of America was punch drunk on all of the "hopey changey" kool-aid Obama was pouring.