Replies

http://www.military.com/cs/Satellite?c=maArticle&cid=1199422047446&pagename=News%2FnwsLayout

GIs Told Not to Risk Civilian Lives
July 02, 2009
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

KABUL — Beginning today, American Soldiers in Afghanistan will be under orders to back down when they’re chasing Taliban fighters whenever they think that civilians might be at risk.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, will issue the directive as part of an effort to cut down on civilian casualties, which have enraged the Afghan government and residents. Instead of calling in air support or firing into civilian homes where Taliban fighters have sought refuge, commanders will be instructed to reach out to tribal elders or undertake other efforts to dislodge the fighters.

The order is consistent with what national security adviser James L. Jones told McClatchy Newspapers in Washington Wednesday was President Barack Obama’s concern about civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

“General McChrystal has been given instructions when he left here that, in all military operations, that we redouble our efforts to make sure that innocent loss of life is minimized, with zero being the goal,” Jones said, noting that, “In one mishap you can create thousands more terrorists than you had before the mishap.”

The new order, however, is likely to draw criticism from some U.S. troops, many of whom feel the rules that govern how they fight the war already are too restrictive.

Many troops here say they depend on air power and heavy weaponry because there aren’t enough ground troops to chase Taliban forces on foot. Jones said no additional ground troops will be sent this year, even though some ground commanders want them.

“Everybody had their day in court, so to speak, before the president made his decision,” he said. “We signed off on the strategy, and now we’re in the implementation phase.”

McChrystal’s order will instruct Soldiers to “think about what else can we do,” said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the military’s top spokesman in Afghanistan. “We cannot keep going down the path of putting civilians at risk. ... People want to see changes in behavior.”

(more at link)

These brave men’s deaths are on Obama’s head.

REPOST:

Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:36:09 AM · 8 of 15
MestaMachine to ImpBill
THIS is why Peters, and many guys with boots on the ground, are angry at the changes in ROE and McChrystal’s throwing caution to the wind where it comes to protecting our troops.
He thinks our TROOPS have acted too defensively in their own best interest and caused the “poor, helpless civilians” humiliation.

NOTE THE DATE.
General wants more troops for Afghan war
By: The Associated Press - The Sentinel-Record - Published: 08/02/2009

MORE TROOPS: Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan, may recommend significant changes to U.S. and NATO operations in a report due in August.WASHINGTON - The U.S. general put in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan is likely to recommend significant changes in the campaign and may include a request for more U.S. forces that the White House is expected to resist.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited reassessment of the war against Taliban insurgents aims for a transformation of the shaky relationship between U.S. forces and Afghan civilians as troops press a counterinsurgency strategy of clearing and holding populated areas, said officials apprised of the report’s contents.

The biggest change urged in McChrystal’s report is a “cultural shift” in how U.S. and foreign troops operate - ranging from how they live and travel among the Afghan population to where and how they fight, a senior military official in Kabul said Friday.

The latest draft of the assessment also urges speeding up the training of Afghan soldiers and police and nearly doubling their numbers to roughly 400,000, said a senior defense official in Washington, one of several uniformed and civilian officials who spoke on condition anonymity because the report has not been made public.

As McChrystal readies the assessment of the war, due in two weeks, numerous U.S. officials and outsiders aware of his thinking suggest that he will request in a companion report that more American troops, probably including marines, be added next year.

Several people familiar with the work being done cautioned that McChrystal could opt not to ask for an increase at all - a recognition that President Barack Obama and other White House advisers would not look favorably on adding new numbers to U.S. forces after already agreeing to boost their ranks by 21,000 troops earlier this year.

The main recommendations for change stem from the military’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which is now designed to focus less on going after Taliban strongholds and more on protecting the local population.

The new U.S. strategy is also aimed at helping develop an Afghan government that civilians will embrace rather than siding with the insurgents, two senior military officials said. To achieve that, one official said, the latest draft of McChrystal’s assessment includes the following recommendations:

- Using intelligence less to hunt insurgents and more to understand local, tribal and social power structures in the areas where they operate. McChrystal is considering concentrating troops around populated areas rather than going after sparsely populated mountain areas where Taliban hide.

- Getting troops more active in fighting corruption. U.S. forces will need to take care in their dealings with local Afghan leaders to ensure that they are not perceived by the Afghan population to be empowering corrupt officials.

*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR.
In preparing his assessment of the Afghan command, McChrystal found an American military culture that showed a great concern for troops’ protection – sometimes at the expense of their relations with Afghan civilians.

To change those relations, McChrystal wants American forces to think twice about basic conduct - for instance no longer pointing their guns at people when they pass in convoy or blocking narrow roads with their convoys, while relegating Afghans to the ditches.

To deal with the most contentious aspect of those shaky relations, McChrystal has already committed to try to reduce civilian casualties by issuing new orders that restrict when troops should call in bombing strikes.