Skip to comments.Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops’ actions in Afghanistan [New ROE are WORSE!}
Posted on 11/26/2013 9:17:13 PM PST by huldah1776
"Said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, now a military analyst: Call me crazy, but what on earth is the point of remaining there under these [rules of engagement], much less subjecting American soldiers to another set of restrictions that make sense only in proportion to your distance from the combat zone?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My thoughts exactly, let them do what they were trained to do or bring them home. The more restrictive the ROE, the more our troops pay.
Their rules of engagement should be no tighter than the rules our own police operate under.
Nothing like trying to derail a thread.
All we need there is a drone station.
The place is not even suitable to place our people at an airbase.
This is so ridiculous, it’s sickening and again I ask, where the ‘f’ is code pink????
Nevermind, it’s a rhetorical question.
must read book on this very matter
Betrayed : The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father
Support the Vaughn’s ; BUY and read this book .
They are relentless in pushing back on this travesty .
I don’t understand why anyone would join the military in this day and age. I don’t understand why anyone who is currently in the military would stay in the military.
I can only assume it’s for the paycheck ‘cause there ain’t no jobs for them.
On the contrary: his remark was on point.
Why do the ROE for the police LESS strict than for the troops?
US police can anally delve an innocent man for nine hours, or bulldoze a house and shoot an unarmed man.
US troops - on the other hand - are barely allowed to shoot back if fired upon.
“My thoughts exactly, let them do what they were trained to do or bring them home.”
Bringing them home would be tantamount to admitting the same thing we did in Iraq with out midnight retreat: we lost, and ur troops died for nothing there. The higher these casualties go, the less likely that we’ll pull everyone out altogether. We’re still pretending Iraq was a worthwhile venture, while people are dying daily over there in the instability we created.
“... The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire - even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed ...
“... U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals, Mr. Obama pledged ...
“Terrorist-hunting missions will require U.S. personnel to engage in combat by accompanying Afghans on counterterrorism raids and supplying close-air support. That is why the rules for when U.S. troops can and cannot fire on the enemy or enter a dwelling remain important ...”
The formerly less restrictive ROEs were responsible for the Seal Team 6 RPG attack and the total lack of reponse.
I wonder if an objective analysis would show that more of our American troop injuries and deaths are caused by our own government than by enemy action if we could fight without the current ROEs?
How many generals have resigned or publicly complained about these PC rules of engagements which our killing American soldiers?
None. This gives me a clear picture of the leadership in the military today.
1. The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
2. U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals, Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.
This obscenity means that armed enemy within a dwelling simply have to wait for troops to become targets, and then they can fire with impunity. Our troops are forbidden to enter that fighting position that is also a dwelling because they will be told "there is no threat to life or limb if you just leave it alone and exit the area."
These ROE are additional grounds for impeachment.
This is an outright criminal and traitorous act on Obama's part.
Do you disagree that the ROE on our troops is too restrictive?
It should be written in stone that anytime we stop pursuing total victory in any combat operation that we are required to bring our troops home.
This is obscene what's happening to our troops in Afghanistan.
We had a lieutenant sentenced to hard labor for protecting his troops:
The recent conviction of First Lieutenant Clint Lorance is a prime example of how the rules of engagement have placed our troops at risk. No where is this more apparent than in the recent conviction of Lt. Lorance was found guilty of violating the ROE and sentenced to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of pay, and dismissal from the Army.
A First Lieutenant was convicted of murder for ordering his platoon to fire on the Taliban in hostile territory? What kind of war is this?
The twenty-seven year old Lorance had been placed in charge of the platoon on June 30, 2012. The previous commander and 3 of his men had been ambushed and taken off of the battle field just 3 days prior in a small village there.
Lorance and his platoon were off to that village 72 hours later on July 2. His platoon was on high alert in enemy territory in a remote sector of Kandahar Province. They were on foot, using mine detectors to traverse the area. Lorance received a radio warning from Army pilots patrolling the skies that hostiles were North, East and West of the platoons position on the ground. The Lieutenant confirmed the description of the hostiles with the Army pilots, and the pilots continued to monitor the enemy presence.
So the group is in enemy territory surrounded on three sides by hostiles, they are on foot in an area that is believed to be full of landmines on their way to a village that had just wiped out a group of Americans three days prior.
That is when a couple of men sitting idle on motorcycles came into view; they appeared to be acting as spotters. The group fit the description from the Army pilots of hostiles.
It is not uncommon for the Taliban to approach on motorcycles and toss a few grenades as they speed passed, or to relay positions via radio to distant artillery. The area had been taken over by the Taliban after forcing out the local population. So, it wasnt like there was a chance these guys were a motorcyle club out on an afternoon picnic or to travel to the store or inspect their farms. The farmers had long abandoned that region and were south to the river of Kandahar province. It is a bit dicey to grow crops in a combat region and farmer tend to prefer places where troops are not trampling their crops and livestock.
In enemy territory, the intelligence description fit the group. Lorance could have waited for the distant artillery to take out his platoon. He could have waited for them to speed into his platoon with grenades, or fire a shot to set off a land mine. He could have sat there and wondered if the Afghan soldiers were going to take the lead, or inquire if would they perhaps like Americans to do so. A wrong decision would have resulted in his whole platoon being wiped out. To protect his platoon, Clint Lorance radioed his marksman and ordered two long-range precision shots. Two members of the Taliban were killed.
A short while later, Lorances platoon entered the Taliban village where the prior platoon had been wiped out. They were met with gunfire. The arrested two confirmed Taliban fighters and brought them back to headquarters. The arrested Taliban members tested positive for gunpowder. The Taliban members were later released.
The Afghanistan government filed a complaint regarding the incident. That is when the Army arrested First Lieutenant Lorance. Four of his platoon members, including the trigger man who actually took out the two scouts, agreed to testify against Lorance in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Had they not accepted immunity, they would have faced similar prosecution.
Prior to this incident, Lorance had served two combat tours; 15 months in Iraq and 7 months in Afghanistan. He wasnt a rookie to the battlefield and had served in the Army for 10 years and had led the platoon less the 72 hours when the incident occurred. He had seen action before and based his actions on his experience and intelligence report. He did what he believed to be the right thing to save his soldiers and protect their life. For this, he has been convicted of murder under the new ROE.
The website to defend Lt. Lorance has this to say about the Afghan in the Lead ROE when Lorance had asked for clarification on ROE changes in July.
LT Lorance sought clarification as to what exactly Afghan in the Lead meant. The Company Commander replied with if the Afghans dont want to patrol, we dont patrol. This guidance was vague. US Generals should have very clearly specified the modification, if any, to the current rules of engagement. Many platoons simply stopped patrolling, which set the stage for the Taliban to retake the territory. When the US is absent, there is a power vacuum. LT Lorance knew that in order to protect his men, his platoon must continue to patrol often.
What kind of war are we fighting? It would seem this guy is worthy of a medal, not a court-martial. Taking a soldier to task for patrolling an area and responding the intelligence seems like a smart thing to do. If this is the sort of situation our soldiers are in, then it is time for our troops to come home.
Afghanistan is just another Korea and Vietnam.
Its a limited war, a police action.
A higher tech, lower casualty version of Korea and Vietnam.
Its ironic to realize that the supply lines for both sides in this war run through the same country, Pakistan.
The Taliban of Afghanistan who enabled Bin Laden were the creation of the Pakistani intelligence agency the ISI.