The Shotgun Blog
« If you think 22% was bad . . . | Main | More Communist support for Hezbollah et al »
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Rules of Engagement
From the NY Post this morning
"Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral - and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone - dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.
U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported."
My initial reaction was probably the same as most... "Why are we playing by these rules, when the Taliban would kill coalition forces anywhere, anytime?"
My only hope is that US intelligence passed on this opportunity for a larger one in the future, one that we are presently not aware of.
But in the meantime, 190 Taliban fighters have had stays of execution and will live another day to kill Canadian troops.
And as my pal BDT eloquently pointed out, it took just 19 hijackers to cause billions in damage and set the world on it's ear. Think of what we might have prevented had we been able to take out these 190 Taliban.
UPDATE - Army to probe unauthorized release of photo
Posted by Mike The Greek on September 13, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834e614ab69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rules of Engagement:
Comments
And that is one of the reasons we are eventually going to lose this war.
Another reason is that our leftists (over half of our population) has already surrendered.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-13 8:41:52 AM
It is easy to say that they just should have wiped out the entire group, but you really only can do that once. Having shown willingness to wipe out a crowd at a cemetary, you just won't see crowds at the cemetary anymore. So the question is what value a one-off has against the long term.
One long-term benefit is if you give the enemy thye freedom to show their face in public, it makes tracking them a whole lot easier. So instead of a one-time cemetary hit, you could instead have on many occasions funerals as ways of tracking people you wipe out later.
Then there is the provocation question. If you hope to keep people who have not yet been radicalized by the Taliban unradicalized, it is probably best not to show a fundamental lack of respect for a religious ceremony. Sure we could bomb funerals, weddings, and even carefully selected Mosques, but targetting religious events and locations will only make the not-yet-a-terrorist Muslim think it might not be such a bad idea to become a suicide bomb er in Grand Central Station.
I don't support the non-attack because it was the humane thing to do. I support it because it was strategically the right thing to do.
Posted by: Laurie | 2006-09-13 8:53:47 AM
I doubt if such a "rule" exists. NATO Allies would be doing those Taliban bastards a favour by sending them on to "Paradise" en masse. We need a New General George S. Patton in the US Army in any event. What difference would bombing a graveyard make in the overall picture. Russuians would have bombed everything in site.
Cheers, Jack MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-09-13 9:00:01 AM
If you fight with both hands tied behind your back be prepared to retreat bloodied and looking foolish.
We must consider if this is a fight we're willing to loose.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-09-13 9:02:50 AM
The RoE were a big reason the Vietnam War was lost.
Conditions:
War of Attrition
CHECK
Untouchable Sanctuaries for the Enemy
CHECK
Cultivation of Poppy for Financing Enemy
CHECK
Having to Request Authorization before Striking Enemy
CHECK
Corruption of Local Governments
CHECK
Treasonous Support at Home Unmolested
CHECK
These RoE straitjackets are a TACTICAL failure which will lead to a Strategic Defeat. While tracking 100+ individuals leaving a funeral seems like a good idea it is not possible to track them all by air and get a useful result.
Meanwhile a 'one off' strike would have permanently dealt with some or all of them and the RoE is a continual straitjacket which hampers the war effort and lowers the morale of our soldiers who would be attacked by the enemy under the same circumstances.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 9:04:28 AM
Laurie -noble etc., but nonsense. Duke is right on target!
Posted by: Frico | 2006-09-13 9:08:48 AM
If we were serious, the result would have been:
1 attack helicopter
1 30mm cannon
2 racks of hellfire missiles
10 seconds (max)
190 dead terrorists
Instead we have 190 live terrorists to deal with and how many dead coalition and civilians when they're finished killing?
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-09-13 9:11:08 AM
I believe these so called rules of engagement are there to make folks like taliban jack happy.
On the down side the cost of transportation would have been saved if there had been hit on the spot. A grave injustice to the world.
Posted by: melwilde | 2006-09-13 9:14:14 AM
Slightly "off topic" but the Globe& Mail quoted some obscure academic from Montreal today who brought a political perspective into DND's decision to send the Royal 22nd Regiment to Afghanistan. which is in fact a high profile Infantry Regiment in our "order of battle" - knew
many from the famed Regiment some years ago, the soldiers will be pissed that the Globe ran with such nonsense. Harper will be attacked by the Canadian left wing media on a daily basis but will stay the course. Our new Motto - buy a grave for a taliban! the least we could do.
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-09-13 9:17:27 AM
Laurie,
The thwarted event was real.
Your position, is theoretical at best.
It is full of maybe this and maybe that!
People who call themselves supreme, will not look at us in a lower manner, than they already do, as they, right there, right now, without theory, consider us all infidels, worthy only of death. Appeasement is not just considered a weakness, it IS a real weakness, and one in which they will exploit, without question.
And those who hate us, will not love us just because 190 terrorists have been spared.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-13 9:17:33 AM
I agree with comments that we should be relentless towards terrorists.
But the situation in Afghanistan is really complex. On one hand the Talibans are recruiting new members it seems. On the other hand, the official government is corrupted. And there is a flourishing trade of opium.
Maybe we should take a new approach to Agfhanistan. In my opinion, nothing of value can be achieved with a corrupted government. Because people are not clear who is on the right side.
So I suggest a process of creating a honest government should be started.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-09-13 9:48:01 AM
NATO and Allied "Rules Of Engagement" in Afghanistan are classified "Top Secret". I remain doubtful of the New York Post Story.
US Military are of course rightfully concerned about non-combatants, especially children being
killed. But Taliban like Hezbollah use families and chldren as shields on a regular basis. Canadian Military would as well as other NATO Allies be concerned about this aspect of combat. But Taliban suicide bombers could care less about
"Civilian" casualities, which of course appears to be a standard operating procedure for the Taliban in any event.
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-09-13 9:49:50 AM
The enemy can analyze engagements and NATO's opportunity for engagement with them and make a very accurate assessment of the RoE. It is when they are changed or special authorization is given that the enemy can be caught flat footed.
If the RoE are 'TOP SECRET' it is obvious who the secret is meant to be kept from. I don't think it is the Taliban who are being kept in the dark as they can get copies of the RoE from the Pakistanis.
That said, bloggers can also piece pictures together from fragments.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 10:00:16 AM
You know, folks. There's a reason you guys are nothing more than people who post angrily to a blog and not military strategists. But, please. Do carry on regardless.
Posted by: Gene | 2006-09-13 10:08:11 AM
War is war or don't go there. Period. Walk along the Nam Memorial and then tell me that any War fought under political rules is a just war for those that are fighting. If the above is true I would suggest that every Parent, Wife or loved one turn on the Governments involved with a vengeance. As one great American said, always be prepared to defend your Country against your Government. If a government will not defend their men at ALL costs and under ANY circumstances get out. I support and supported the ideals behind both War's but not the Government if they start placing politically correct caveats that compromise the lives of our Soldiers. If war is to be it should come to a conclusion as soon as possible by whatever means available at the time. Whatever means. All the academic arguments in the world can go to hell until the job is done and our guys fighting are out of danger.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-09-13 10:09:09 AM
Gene,
Be honest. You prejudged and discounted before you even logged onto this site. "You people"? I see debate in this thread. Kerry-loving, Bush-Lied, Blood-for-Oil, Michael-Moore-for President lefties like you, suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) suffer from misplaced anger and inability to countenance discussion outside the parameters of your misguided creed. Go away.
Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2006-09-13 10:20:38 AM
It appears, the beginning of failure, is when the one who would be victor, fails to recognize, that intelligence is not limited to side.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-13 10:29:11 AM
BNZ, I love talking about military matters with western leftists. The don't know an MBT from an APC or IFV. They don't understand what the 'depleted' means in DU. They don't know a machine gun from an assault rifle. And they surely don't know the tactical necessities which engendered the developement of them or how tactics changed with the technology.
They even think that nuclear weapons are the worst weapons ever created by man, but they're not.
Funniest of all they don't understand the distinction between tactics and strategy.
What they do seem to get, though, is that by restricting this war to a war of attrition and dragging it out with limited Rules of Engagement we will lose the war. But they don't seem to get that losing it will really mean having to worry every time they get on a plane, train, or bus like the pre-separation wall Israelis.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 10:39:25 AM
Word on the street here in DC is that Rummy is going to take a beating over this, politically.
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | 2006-09-13 10:50:49 AM
Gene,
I'm interested in your comments.
Please explain what YOU would have done in this case? That portion of your post seems to be missing. And what, pray tell, is "the reason" people are commenting on this post? That seems to be missing as well.
Are you a military strategist? You seem to know what shouldn't be done. What are our options?
This isn't just a drive by leftist smear, is it?
Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-09-13 11:02:02 AM
And of course all the funeral attendants were Taliban fighters, there were no women, children, civilians ets around. Sure.
Unless we (the West) show some restraint when it comes to killing civilians, there are two options:
i) Start to bomb funerals, villages, or whatever, kill some Taliban & bunch of civilians. This will generate additional Taliban and prolong the war.
ii) Kill everyone in Afghanistan. This will end the war.
Or we can show that we, indeed, are the West, not Taliban-West.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-09-13 11:18:42 AM
The best scenario would have been if they were arrested and charged. John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-09-13 11:57:33 AM
It is simply a part of Muslim culture to bring their women and children along, even in combat situations. A good argument can be made that they are part of the Taliban logistical train.
It is well known that captured soldiers are skinned alive by Pashtun women.
The Young British Soldier
(edited for brevity)
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Rudyard Kipling
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 12:54:19 PM
"Royal 22nd Regiment to Afghanistan"
Does this really surprise you Jack? Of the 32 dead, it appears only one, Cpl. Jason Patrick Warren, an Anglo, was from Quebec. Polls continue to show Quebecers highly opposed to deployment in the Stan. The last deployment was controversial. 19 troops tested positive for illicit drug use after a raid at Valcartier. It was also interesting to note that those new armoured Mercedes wagons, that replaced the Iltis, arrived just in time for the Vandoos deployment to the Stan. Do you believe in coincidence?
"Army rushes to replace jeeps for Kabul troops
Updated Tue. Jan. 13 2004 11:15 PM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- The Canadian army in Afghanistan will take delivery of the first 60 new replacements for the much-maligned Iltis jeep in February, months ahead of schedule, military officials revealed Tuesday.
The Royal 22nd Regiment in Valcartier, Que., which begins filtering into Kabul this month, already has received prototypes of the German-made Gelaendewagens, dubbed G-Wagons by the Canadians, one military source said. "
Same old, same old.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-13 12:55:08 PM
As much as it saddens me to know that they didn't blow the crap out of the funeral taliban, it was the only thing they could do.
Can you imagine the new York Times headline after an attack like that ?
It would have read "U.S. bombs civilian funeral-hundreds of innocents dead"
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-09-13 4:32:36 PM
"Why are we playing by these rules, when the Taliban would kill coalition forces anywhere, anytime?"
The funeral is covered by the Geneva Conventions under the religious and cultural sections.
While the GC states that combatants out of uniform aren't entitled to its protections, it also states that religious and cultural objects are protected. Some of the attendees were fair game, just not at that time and place.
We're playing by these rules because we are better than them.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-09-13 6:43:47 PM
Correction - cemeteries are covered as religious or cultural objects, not the funerals themselves.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-09-13 6:54:15 PM
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-13 6:58:40 PM
Kathryn, the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and inapplicable, this isn't a conventional war covered by the Geneva Conventions in any case.
This is now an irregular war with irregular rules. The enemy doesn't recognize any law but Sharia and has said so on countless occasions.
The Geneva conventions were for civilized nations to fight each other and remain civilized when it was over.
The goal of the enemy is to wipe civilization and the history of civilization from the face of the earth.
Might doesn't make right, neither does right make might. The Geneva Conventions will be moot if we lose this war, and we are losing this war.
Two years ago the Taliban was throwing platoon size units against our NATO forces.
Last year they started fielding Companies.
This year they are on the offensive with Battalions and have an official sanctuary in Waziristan.
What will we be fighting next year, Regiments?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 7:02:41 PM
Kathryn,
Hypothetical question...
OBL is among the mourners. We've got one shot to take him out. Waiting until he leaves in not an option.
I'll even add some more difficulty. He is in among women and children.
What do we do?
Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-09-13 7:13:01 PM
In addition Kathryn, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. They are nevertheless protected by them if the have not broken them.
Guess what, they have in fact broken them.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-13 7:16:28 PM
Mike the Greek,
I'm just telling you what the GCs say.
If it was up to me and there was a chance to take out OBL, I'd say go for it and used the biggest weapon available. If others get taken out, oh well, too bad so sad.
But it's not up to me. Others, who are expected and paid to make these decisions, opted to follow the GCs.
In this real world case, the terrorists would have to come out of the cemetery sooner or later. GC-wise, they're fair game again.
Speller,
The GCs might be obsolete, but as long as a country hasn't revoked them, they are applicable.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-09-13 7:41:13 PM
Speller wrote: In addition Kathryn, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
I guess you should tell Bush that the government of Afghanistan isn’t a party to the Geneva Convention. Here’s a White House press release from 2003.
“Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html
Afghanistan ratified the treaty on 26.09.1956
http://www.icrc.org/
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-13 8:14:50 PM
GC's do not appply to a terrorist army out of uniform, nor should they be. Never have, never will.
As for being judged by the New York Times or anyone else, I would rather be judged by a hundred than carried by six.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-13 8:19:52 PM
Kathryn,
I guess the part in your original post that disturbs me is...
"We're playing by the rules because we're better than them."
Ayn Rand said, "In the battle between the honest and the dishonest man, the dishonest man always win." I agree with her on a philosophical basis, but I hate the statement morally.
The honest man sets boundaries that the dishonest man understands. Therefore, all the dishonest man has to do is cross boundaries where the honest man refuses to go.
If our enemies understand our limitations, they know when and how to hit us. If they are afraid of what we will do next because we decide to work outside what they think our boundaries are, then the power is returned to us.
Occassionally, people must do ugly, terrible and immoral things for the right reasons. Hiroshima comes to mind. Thankfully, those occassions are few and far between, but when they do happen, we need brave men and women to do those things.
Then it's between them, their conscience, and their God.
Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-09-13 8:38:00 PM
Mike the Greek,
I'm not sure why you find it disturbing. A country, in this case the USA, agreed to wage war by a certain set of rules. These rules are primarily for the safety and protection of civilians - the real ones, not non-uniformed combatants such as the taliban. Once the rules have been agreed to, the USA is honour-bound to follow them.
As I wrote above, they were free to attack the terrorists the moment they left the cemetery. If for some reason the terrorists never left the cemetery and used it as a military base, the protections afforded by the GC no longer apply and the USA would be legally allowed and morally justified to attack them.
One other thing - had the US ordered the attack, the soldiers in the field were duty-bound to ignore the order. It would have been an illegal order under both the GC and the ROE.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-09-13 10:39:14 PM
We will be fighting this war in Afghanistan for the next hundred years, unless we also take it to Waziristan. And then terrorism will spring out elsewhere. As long as there is one terrorist cell left on this Earth, it will fester and spread again like the cancer it is.
When will we be able to say that victory has been achieved? Who is going to speak (and surrender) on behalf of the terrorists? Let's face it; this is not going anywhere, and we are nowhere nearer to victory now than we were 5 years ago.
We need to rethink our strategy. Bring the troops back home; secure our borders; deport trouble-makers; make our countries safer. Other countries will have to follow suit, because when terrorists realize they cannot harm us, they will turn to targets of opportunity. And then if only Afghanistan is left, tough.
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2006-09-14 3:52:46 AM
NSZ, when the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan they revoked all non-Muslim treaties and conventions.
The Karzai government is no successor to the government prior to the Taliban. Has Karzai reinvoked the cast aside agreements? Show me a link.
As I said, if we lose this war the GC will be moot.
Under Sharia, Muslim governments treat their own subjects as bad as the comitting of war crimes.
Just recently, because they are under Sharia, they were screaming for the execution of an Afghani for converting to Christianity.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 6:47:52 AM
Speller wrote: The Karzai government is no successor to the government prior to the Taliban. Has Karzai reinvoked the cast aside agreements? Show me a link.
http://www.icrc.org
As of 12/04/05 Afghanistan was a party to the Geneva Convention.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-14 7:00:33 AM
Your link simply leads to the web page of the ICRC, you can do better.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 7:15:13 AM
By the way we have seen pictures on this very blog of the ICRCs agents using it's ambulances, in violation of the GC, to ferry terrorists.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 7:16:57 AM
http://www.juancole.com/2004/08/continued-shiite-clashes-with-us-najaf.html
EXCERPT
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The US has aerially bombed Najaf cemetery and US tanks have targeted hotels in the city in an effort to get at the Mahdi army militiamen, of whom the US claims to have killed 300. This number has been challenged by the Sadrists, and local hospitals put the dead at closer to 76.
Heavy fighting broke out again early Saturday in Najaf, for the third straight day. Mahdi Army guerrillas fired mortar rounds at the US Marines. Ash-Sharq al-Awsat says an eyewitness phoned in a report of the streets littered with the bodies of Mahdi Army fighters. (As Riverbend notes, Arab satellite television also showed the body of at least one woman.)
Mahdi Army fighters have taken refuge in the shrine of Imam Ali, many of them having exhausted their ammunition. Muqtada al-Sadr himself has disappeared and gone into hiding. His mansion in Najaf was unguarded on Saturday.
US Marines captured the Najaf cemetery on Saturday, which had been a hide-out of the Mahdi Army militia. For centuries, pious Shiites have brought the corpses of dead relatives not only from Iraq but from all over the world to be buried near the shrine of Imam Ali (the Prophet Muhammad's son-in-law and successor according to Shiites). This practice has created enormous cemeteries in Najaf, with many crypts and other edifices where Mahdi Army fighters had begun hiding out. Most Shiites would view US troops as desecrating these holy burial places.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 7:41:10 AM
Here's another one>
Suicide Bomber Kills Five At Afghan Governor's Funeral
September 11, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Radio Free Afghanistan reports a suicide bomber blew himself up today at the funeral of an assassinated Afghan provincial governor, killing five people and wounding another ten.
An RFA correspondent who was slighlty injured in the blast says a provincial official is among the wounded. He says four of the wounded are in a critical condition.
The incident took place at Hisarak village in eastern Khost Province, during the funeral of Hakim Taniwal, the governor of neighboring Paktia Province who was killed in a suicide bomb attack on Sunday (September 10).
The Taliban has reportedly claimed responsibility for Taniwal's death.
Four Afghan cabinet ministers had come to Hisarak from Kabul to attend the funeral of the late governor.
They left the area by helicopter after the blast. None of them was hurt.
http://www.azadiradio.org/en/news/2006/09/0DD1E6B3-22D0-4321-873C-09D0C6125AB8.ASP
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 7:55:41 AM
Speller
Did you read where the Norwegian troops in Afghanistan refused a NATO order to move their units to a less tranquil part of the country? A Norwegian minister had protested the order,saying that the men in place were
a: Not trained for combat
b: Not equipped for combat
c: Not sent by Norway to engage in combat
Apparently, the Norwegian government mistook a NATO mission for one of those UN non-missions that Kofi Annan and his ilk excel in producing with regularity.
Gawd save us all.
Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2006-09-14 11:45:59 AM
I support our fighting men and women in Afghanistan. I want to see a winning strategy.
The current tactics, allowing Waziristan to be a 'no go zone' and not killing the enemy at EVERY opportunity is a recipe for failure.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 12:35:20 PM
Speller wrote: Your link simply leads to the web page of the ICRC, you can do better.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20Geneve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG.pdf#search=%22geneva%20convention%20signatories%22
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-14 3:14:28 PM
That's better NSZ. Looks like some long lost Afghan government signed the original set of conventions in '56. Didn't get Afghan signatories to later protocols though.
As I said earlier, the Taliban revoked all treaties and conventions.
No connection exists between whatever obscure regime existed in '56 and today's Karzai regime.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 4:00:00 PM
Speller wrote: As I said earlier, the Taliban revoked all treaties and conventions.
You don't have to personally sign to be bound by the conventions: if a nation signs up, any subsequent 'regime change', to use the US's phraseology, carries over the obligations of the conventions to the new regime. Afghanistan's a signatory. Now, if you don't recognise the Taliban as ever being the legitimate government of Afghanistan, you probably recognise the one it replaced: that is the US position.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-14 4:17:01 PM
Speaking from a lot of years experience in the military, including tours in the middle east, there are no rules there. To think there is, is to get involved in another Vietnam. Let me put it very simply, you go to war to win it. You win a war by killing the enemy until they give up. Its not rocket science. An army that goes to war with rules will lose that war.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-14 5:25:48 PM
No Spin Zone,
So that would be the Soviet backed Afghan Communist government then. Any proof that they respected the GCs?
I've seen lots of proof that they didn't.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-14 5:29:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.