Pressure on Petraeus to ease war rules

JPost ^ | Jun 26, 2010

[Jet Jaguar]

Troops want more protection from the new US commander in Afghanistan.

NATO forces fighting in southern Afghanistan face a Catch-22 dilemma: how to protect troops against an enemy that lives — and fights — among the population without killing civilians and turning the people against the US-led mission.

There are complaints from the ranks about restrictive policies which place their lives at risks and this is one of the issues facing General David Petraeus — along with relations with a weak Afghan government and jittery allies; slow and uncertain progress

[ABQHispConservative]

I’ve always found it insulting that most libs think of our troops as brain-dead idiots that cannot distinguish between friend-and-foe. Unleash them so they can finish the Taliban and Al Qaeda once and for all. These half-measures, restraining the troops, only prolong the mission.

[SpaceBar]

Captured insurgents should be given a pack of smokes and a warning.

[Retain Mike]

Successful counterinsurgency warfare first provides security by destroying or expelling the insurgent forces. Regardless of time or place, people suffering in these lawless, feral regions evaluate security by whoever is most lethal in firefights. Their allegiance goes to whoever wins the battles, regardless of civilian deaths due to collateral damage or to deliberate executions by an insurgency seeking to retain control. Only by crossing the armed conflict boundary at this cruelest point in a revolutionary war, can the next phases of counterinsurgency warfare commence to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population.

Therefore, the Senate Committee on Armed Services should ask General Petraeus the following questions.

Will NCO’s be able to call for illumination rounds to reveal enemy firing positions?

Will troops be allowed a round in the chamber of their weapons?

Will troops be allowed to engage insurgents in the act of burying a roadside bomb?

Will troops engaged in combat now be able to call bombing and strafing runs to extricate themselves and win firefights?

Will crucial decisions be made by warriors in contact with the enemy, or by staff officers in remote bunkers?

Will you obey Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which say Protected Persons within the enemy’s physical control cannot be used to render certain points and areas immune from military operations, or will you serve a political agenda?

Will our troops be given permission to win, or will the survivors be ordered to leave in 18 months after being regarded with derision and contempt by the Afghans?