Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 3:01:51 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
I heard this about a week ago and couldn't find a source which documented it that I trusted, or even a FOX report for that matter. Although I found some general references to it in a variety of places, I couldn't find any source that specifically documented them. Today I found an article from November 16, 2009. I assume that the soon to be deployed new troops will be subject to the same.

The background story is that General McChrystal claimed that casualties and collateral damage inflicted in Afghanistan had resulted in the legitimacy of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force being "severely damaged" in the eyes of the Afghan people" because of "an over-reliance on firepower and force protection".

In other words - there was too much 'war' being conducted in the Afghan war. As a result new rules of engagement are in place.

Among them:
  • No night or surprise searches.
  • Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
  • ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. (Local Police)
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
  • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
  • Only women can search women.
  • Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.


These are stories and quotes from soldiers in the field, from the same link, regarding the new rules:

  • "It's OK for the insurgents to use their women to hide weapons but it's not OK for us [men] to search them," said Staff Sgt. Joshua Yost, 27, of Shelton, Wash. "So now, we have to break our own rules and bring women into combat just so they can search the women."
  • The platoon members spread across and around the fields surrounding the village. An announcement from a dilapidated mosque alerted villagers of the impending search.
    "Well, the bad guys know we're coming," said the interpreter, laughing. "They're probably hiding their weapons by now."
    Some of the men squatting outside the mosque looked stoic. Others stared in anger.
    In the mosque, the soldiers discovered a 9 mm handgun with clips.

  • "We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules," he said. "Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It's not easy for anyone out here."
  • Then he added, referring to the rules of engagement that his forces try to observe, "For our guys, it's tough. Sometimes they feel they have their hands tied behind their backs."
  • Interviewed by The Times, Sahed the imam said U.S. troops were "respectful to his people and provided security."
    "I tell my people in the mosque to not become suicide bombers and to not kill those who want to help us," he said.
    However, asked about the presence of U.S. troops in his village, Sahed said they "need to go. Get out of Afghanistan or it will never be resolved. Between Islam and the infidel there can never be a relationship."

  • The last quote points to a positive result: Contacted by e-mail after The Times' reporter and photographer had returned to the U.S., Capt. Thoreen described a clinic his unit had since hosted, which treated 75 locals including 20 women.
    "It was a huge success. The people are becoming much more open and friendly," he said. As evidence of that success, he cited a drop in IED attacks on his soldiers.

We've been told by the Administration and the Pentagon that this is NOT another Vietnam. However once again - the US plays by one rule book, the enemy plays with another.

I hope that our enemy believes our President when he says were are gone in 18 months and just takes a vacation. If not these rules insure ongoing reports of US casualties along with frustration for those placed in the battlefield. If it's not Vietnam - its damn close.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 12/8/2009 3:56:13 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 3:25:44 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
At what time do our troops have to read Miranda Rights to the terrorists ? They certainly wouldn't want to give one of them a fat lip and be prosecuted like our Navy seals are...

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 3:39:59 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
And people actually think we can win a war against one of history's most difficult fighting forces under these circumstances. Money and blood down the drain.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 3:50:13 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
One might ask, why are we asking our army to behave like a police force?
Because it is a police force. Our army is the police force trying to make the cities and villages stable, so a government can form and grow.

We could- scratch that-
We DID go in, guns blazing and kick the shit out of the Afghan government, and it collapsed in a week.
The question is, why didn't we declare victory and go home?

Because we were told that unless they had a stable government, the peace would be lost and the old government would return.

I have my doubts about the wisdom of that strategy, but that is what is being done.

For the supporters of that strategy, here is a good article, in this week's LA Times:
Yemen Teeters on the Edge of Failure
Money quote:
"Al Qaeda's aim is to exploit the economic crisis and domestic turmoil, overthrow the government and build a base for attacks across the region, Western and Yemeni intelligence officials say. Worried about terrorism and protecting oil supplies, the U.S. is working on a military cooperation pact with Yemen that includes training Yemeni special forces."

So now that we have established that we must- absolutely must- prevent AQ from having a safe haven anywhere in the world, you can expect that Yemen will be the newest of our preventative wars of non-aggression.

< Message edited by AnimusRex -- 12/8/2009 3:51:21 PM >

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 3:56:18 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And people actually think we can win a war against one of history's most difficult fighting forces under these circumstances. Money and blood down the drain.


It's interesting that this criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan has only surfaced since Obama took office.

Were you guys not paying attention the last eight years?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:05:47 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Were you guys not paying attention the last eight years?


Don't know who the "you guys" references; but regardless these "Rules of Engagement" went into effect last month - not eight years ago.

Which one is it - Obama didn't have enough time to consider the implication and consequences of those rules or "It's Bush's fault"?

Some morale booster for the troops though huh?

If I had a child who enlisted and was going to be deployed - I'd support him/her going AWOL versus going there to be a sitting duck for a people who see the situation, as at least one was quoted in the article, say we "...need to go. Get out of Afghanistan or it will never be resolved. Between Islam and the infidel there can never be a relationship." I appreciate the clarity and honesty of that grass roots assessment and take it as fact.

Although many obviously think that attitude will change....
....in eighteen months.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:14:53 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
"The US plays by one rule book,the enemy plays with another"
Are you suggesting US forces should adopt the tactics of our enemy?
Funny thing ...if my son were to join and face deployment....were told he must learn to be inhumane and vicious....I would tell him to go AWOL.....losing his humanity by aping the behavior of our enemies would not be something I would want for him

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:18:54 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
It was a direct reply to Willbeur's claim, and the newly discovered "reality" of many on the right that we cannot win a war in Afghanistan.

Striking in its contrast to the deafening silence we heard for eight years regarding that very topic.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:20:21 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline
The war was not meant to be won, the war was meant to be continued. - paraphrasing

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:36:05 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

"The US plays by one rule book,the enemy plays with another"
Are you suggesting US forces should adopt the tactics of our enemy?
No - I'm under the mistaken impression we are at war. We have US troops on the ground who can't protect themselves. War is fought and people die. That is what war is. You kill the enemy you protect yourself and you shoot people who have harbored or are the enemy.

The General and his Commander and Chief see it differently. You agree - and support the.... whatever you want to call it. The decision puts our troops at risk and provides a strategy for the enemy. A people who strap bombs on children and tell them to walk over to a bus stop will surely always keep one handy when, under these rules, that inhibits any shots being fired at them.

quote:

Funny thing ...if my son were to join and face deployment....were told he must learn to be inhumane and vicious....I would tell him to go AWOL.....losing his humanity by aping the behavior of our enemies would not be something I would want for him
Sad to see you would have your child be a martyr for this cause. A soldier job is not easy under the best of circumstances. They are trained to kill - that is their job. Their Commander and Chief has encumbered their ability to do their job at the same time putting them at risk. The integrity of command has, in my opinion, been made invalid.

Joining the military is different than joining the 'peace corp'. If a soldier joins and loses his/her humanity by doing his job - they should have read the brochure when they signed up. I've never heard of any recruiter listing the opportunity to join the military to discover your 'humanity'.

However you'll have to describe to me whatever you have in mind how our military, or any, kill their enemies in a 'humane' and non-'vicious' manner. It must have a reference in mind or else you wouldn't refer to a reference as a rebuttal. Maybe you can describe how the enemy humanely beheads captured 'infidels'?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 4:56:13 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And people actually think we can win a war against one of history's most difficult fighting forces under these circumstances. Money and blood down the drain.


It's interesting that this criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan has only surfaced since Obama took office.

Were you guys not paying attention the last eight years?



Ummmm...maybe because Afghanistan wasn't escalated until Obama took office?
And to your later post, more lies from RML. Find one word from me ever saying that a ground war in Afganistan would be anything but a disaster, no matter who was CIC at the time.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 12/8/2009 4:58:43 PM >

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:00:18 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And people actually think we can win a war against one of history's most difficult fighting forces under these circumstances. Money and blood down the drain.


It's interesting that this criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan has only surfaced since Obama took office.

Were you guys not paying attention the last eight years?



Ummmm...maybe because Afghanistan wasn't escalated until Obama took office? Ive always said we cannot win a ground war there, no matter who was CIC.


Surely it escalated the day we invaded. Many of you right wingers were claiming Obama should make his mind up on troop levels last week. Since these have not been sent yet, your post doesnt hold water.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:05:00 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And people actually think we can win a war against one of history's most difficult fighting forces under these circumstances. Money and blood down the drain.


It's interesting that this criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan has only surfaced since Obama took office.

Were you guys not paying attention the last eight years?



Ummmm...maybe because Afghanistan wasn't escalated until Obama took office? Ive always said we cannot win a ground war there, no matter who was CIC.


Surely it escalated the day we invaded. Many of you right wingers were claiming Obama should make his mind up on troop levels last week. Since these have not been sent yet, your post doesnt hold water.


No, your post is full of shit. I am not "many right wingers" and RML named me specifically. And to your point I never said he "should make up his mind on troop levels", I said that delaying that long and then claiming that adding troops is clearly the only alternative that he was talking out of both sides of his ass. Again, find one post from me supporting a ground war in Afghanistan.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:08:03 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

No, your post is full of shit. I am not "many right wingers" and RML named me specifically. And to your point I never said he "should make up his mind on troop levels", I said that delaying that long and then claiming that adding troops is clearly the only alternative that he was talking out of both sides of his ass. Again, find one post from me supporting a ground war in Afghanistan.


It's clear that it is easier to attack your position, or assume what it is, than it is to defend these newly minted 'Rules' which the deployed troops will have to follow.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:16:09 PM   
flcouple2009


Posts: 2784
Joined: 1/8/2009
Status: offline
Actually it is the fault of Ronald Regan.

Way back in the 80's the Russians called Radical Islam the biggest threat and problem to the area.  Aside from the fact that they were actually an invading army, the Russians also built schools and tried to educate children (including the girls, which as we know did not sit well with what went onto become the taliban), built sports complexes, and tried to help with the infrastructure.

We would have been better off had we just let the Russians slap them around instead of supplying stingers and helping them learn how to shoot down helicopters with them.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:19:04 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

No, your post is full of shit. I am not "many right wingers" and RML named me specifically. And to your point I never said he "should make up his mind on troop levels", I said that delaying that long and then claiming that adding troops is clearly the only alternative that he was talking out of both sides of his ass. Again, find one post from me supporting a ground war in Afghanistan.


It's clear that it is easier to attack your position, or assume what it is, than it is to defend these newly minted 'Rules' which the deployed troops will have to follow.


His position was Obama had escalated the war, Willbes  words not mine. He also claims he has never suggested anything other than withdrawal. Thats another false claim as shown by his words ( see the theme here ) from another thread.

" Get the hell out and be prepared to try and contain the inevitable takeover by Islamic extremists, or get the fucking job done right and stop trying to tell the professionals how to wage war. "

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:25:45 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

"The US plays by one rule book,the enemy plays with another"
Are you suggesting US forces should adopt the tactics of our enemy?
No - I'm nder the mistaken impression we are at war. We have US troops on the ground who can't protect themselves. War is fought and people die. That is what war is. You kill the enemy you protect yourself and you shoot people who have harbored or are the enemy.

The General and his Commander and Chief see it differently. You agree - and support the.... whatever you want to call it. The decision puts our troops at risk and provides a strategy for the enemy. A people who strap bombs on children and tell them to walk over to a bus stop will surely always keep one handy when, under these rules, that inhibits any shots being fired at them.

quote:

Funny thing ...if my son were to join and face deployment....were told he must learn to be inhumane and vicious....I would tell him to go AWOL.....losing his humanity by aping the behavior of our enemies would not be something I would want for him
Sad to see you would have your child be a martyr for this cause. A soldier job is not easy under the best of circumstances. They are trained to kill - that is their job. Their Commander and Chief has encumbered their ability to do their job at the same time putting them at risk. The integrity of command has, in my opinion, been made invalid.

Joining the military is different than joining the 'peace corp'. If a soldier joins and loses his/her humanity by doing his job - they should have read the brochure when they signed up. I've never heard of any recruiter listing the opportunity to join the military to discover your 'humanity'.

However you'll have to describe to me whatever you have in mind how our military, or any, kill their enemies in a 'humane' and non-'vicious' manner. It must have a reference in mind or else you wouldn't refer to a reference as a rebuttal. Maybe you can describe how the enemy humanely beheads captured 'infidels'?
Do me a favor Merc...don't put words in my mouth or tell me I would have my "child be a martyr for this cause"
I'm under no obligation to accept your extremes as the only two choices available.
American soldiers do not and can not conduct themselves based on the viciousness of their enemy.Hearts and minds and all that.....or do you actually beleive we are going to pacify and subdue all of Afghanistan with a little over 100,000 troops in country?And why should I have to decribe to you how our military kills their enemy in a non vicious or humane manner.....I never made that assine statement so I won't be backing it up.
Sorry to tell you this Merc...but your entering Sanity -zone now......you are the most partisan non-partisan poster we have.....
But I know...your impartial

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 12/8/2009 5:26:50 PM >


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement for US Troops - 12/8/2009 5:47:43 PM   
MasterJimUK


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/29/2009
Status: offline
Hard to comment without knowing the full story.

My understanding is they are trying to take the success and lessons learnt in Iraq and apply it in Afganistan.
These wars are for hearts and minds, they can not be won with bullets. Every idiot with a gun and a Koran will have family and friends, the more you shoot the more get dragged into the conflict.
They turned things around in Iraq by bringing the locals onside and building trust.

I guess thats what they trying to do in Afganistan.

Of course Afganistan is not he same as Iraq, and I feel for the lads out there if their ability to defend themselves is being hampered by rules.

My ten cents worth is that the principles of occupation/ heart and minds etc are the same, and the intention if the not the implimentation is good.
The terrorists are playing for hearts and minds, they are trying to grow a movement. But they are never going to win a popularity contest, so they depend on hatred of the US to bolster their popularity. Civilian deaths, shooting at the wrong armed people (who the hell knows which armed civilians are the local warlords milita or the village guards and which are tablian?) etc just play into the bad guys plans.
Hopefully we are more than capable of outmanuvering these guys if we are smart in how the war is conducted.
Ten dead taliban, 3 dead civilians and an infulential tribal leaders village shot up does not equal a score for the the good guys.


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 6:39:39 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

All I can say is, it's good to know the surge worked. Didn't it?
I suppose the surge in Afghanistan will be equally successful because it is the same strategy.


YouTube - Iraq Car Bombs, Over 100 Dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsQ9XWIasz4&feature=player_embedded

Election Date Set in Iraq as Bombs Kill Scores - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html





(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops - 12/8/2009 6:46:59 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

No, your post is full of shit. I am not "many right wingers" and RML named me specifically. And to your point I never said he "should make up his mind on troop levels", I said that delaying that long and then claiming that adding troops is clearly the only alternative that he was talking out of both sides of his ass. Again, find one post from me supporting a ground war in Afghanistan.


It's clear that it is easier to attack your position, or assume what it is, than it is to defend these newly minted 'Rules' which the deployed troops will have to follow.


His position was Obama had escalated the war, Willbes  words not mine. He also claims he has never suggested anything other than withdrawal. Thats another false claim as shown by his words ( see the theme here ) from another thread.

" Get the hell out and be prepared to try and contain the inevitable takeover by Islamic extremists, or get the fucking job done right and stop trying to tell the professionals how to wage war. "


Another lie, and im fucking sick of it. I never claimed that I "never suggested anything other than withdrawal." Get your facts straight or stfu. I said I have never supported A GROUND WAR. GOT IT?

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 12/8/2009 6:48:53 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Afghanistan Rules of Engagment for US Troops Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094