Obama had enough time to approve the new Rules of Engagement that tie the hands of our military in Afghanistan and protect civilians. Last night I found this article about the Afghans and it looks like the regular Afghan people don’t like the new ROEs.
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?
(snip)
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.
Excerpt: See Full Article at http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20090928.aspx
That is not the least bit surprising. Afghanis are a vastly different people by culture and history. They have been tribal warriors for as many centuries as human habitation can be traced in that region. They also are living right under all of those guns and bombs and lunatic jihadis and understandably know that the price of casualties from friendly fire would be well worth sending those jihadis to allah.
0bama lives in a world of unicorns and skittles thinking that Afghans or Iraqis would be impressed by strict ROEs or bans on water boarding. That is nothing but cowardice to the mildest of them.