U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Say Rules Of Engagement Are 'Too Restrictive'

Today's AfPak round-up:

Afghan companies allegedly owed millions by U.S. firms. According to a NATO official, American contractors hired by the Pentagon are "contributing to fueling the insurgency" by failing to pay their Afghan subcontractors, adding that because Afghans are unlikely to hire American attorneys, they have almost no chance of ever seeing payment. One company, Bennett-Fouch, is alleged to owe $1.5 million to Afghan businessman Jalaluddin Saeed for four contracts to build concrete barriers for U.S. and NATO military bases last year. Saeed had to flee Kandahar along with his family to escape angry creditors. [NYT]

Afghans paid nearly $1B in bribes last year: survey. Nearly 30% of Afghan households surveyed reported having paid a bribe in the past year; over three-quarters of these households are in rural areas, where NATO forces have struggled to persuade residents to ally with them against the Taliban. More than a quarter of respondents felt deprived of access to justice and security because of corruption, and half of those surveyed said state corruption helped the Taliban expand. The survey was conducted by the monitoring group Integrity Watch Afghanistan. [Guardian, WaPo]

VIDEO: U.S. troops in Afghanistan say rules of engagement too restrictive.


Soldiers say rules authored by Gen. Stanley McChrystal to minimize civilian casualties, currently under review by Gen. David Petraeus, are making it difficult for U.S. troops to take the fight to the Taliban. [GlobalPost]

British accomplished little in violent Sangin district, say Afghans. Locals say Britain will withdraw from the small town, whose insurgents have claimed the lives of over 100 British soldiers over the past four years, having failed to deliver peace or development. Though British soldiers enjoy battlefield superiority in the town, frequent "presence patrols" they were required to conduct as part of their counterinsurgency strategy made them easy targets for insurgents' roadside bombs and landmines. [Guardian]

U.S. to spend $3 billion on countering IEDs. The funds will be used to deploy new detection equipment and about 1,000 counter-IED experts to Afghanistan; officials say this will at least double Washington's current counter-IED capacity. IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, are a leading cause of death among NATO troops. Their use by Afghan insurgents has skyrocketed over the past two years. [AFP]

Comments

[DuPageDem]

12:24 PM on 07/10/2010

The bigger problem is that we've refereeing a civil war where you can't tell from one minute to the next who is on which side. Exactly like Vietnam. And it will do about as much good.

[ProFormaArtista]

07:52 PM on 07/09/2010

Some US citizens who join the military to "kick ass," i.e., to kill people, will always complain that someone or something is holding them back from the kill. Those killers and murderers will likely never feel they have enough freedom to kill people. Bunch'a whiners on top of that.

I want to see the Pentagon study showing the percentage of soldiers who join primarily to kill, not to protect America as Rightwing radio talk show hosts falsely attribute that motivation to them. We taxpayers who don't want our tax dollars to go to murderers need and want to know.

[jws2346]

07:06 PM on 07/10/2010

Eek, what a bunch of BS. BRING THEM HOME. I heard the same clap trap when I was in Nam'

[MMRDO]

03:29 PM on 07/16/2010

When your friends are getting killed because ROE wont let them engage, call me.

[mrJJ]

03:31 PM on 07/09/2010

OT:
U.S. forces are scheduled to draw down to 50,000 by September 1, 2010 following President Obama’s withdrawal plan. It’s hardly been noticed, but U.S. troops are almost at that level already.

Since 2009 over 60,000 U.S. soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq. In January 2009 when Obama first took office, there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. After that, several thousand were withdrawn every couple months, going down to 140,000 in February, 137,000 in March, 134,000 in May, 130,000 in June, etc. According to the spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, there are currently 77,500 U.S. personnel in Iraq as of July 2010.

U.S. Troop Strength In Iraq 2003-2010
May 2003 150,000 – Invasion force
October 2007 171,000 – Height of Surge
January 2009 142,000 – Beginning Obama administration
February 140,000
March 137,000
May 134,000
June 130,000
September 124,000
October 117,000
November 115,000
December 110,000
February 2010 98,000
April 95,000
May 92,000
June 90,000
July 77,500

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-forces-drawing-down-in-iraq.html

[ProFormaArtista]

10:34 PM on 07/10/2010

It does not matter how many are withdrawn periodically; I want them down to zero, nada by then, which includes any mercenaries and also proxy armies/troops. Zero.

[zepfan81]

02:22 PM on 07/09/2010

Judging by these comments it's easy to see why many Americans trust liberals less that conservatives when it comes to fighting wars.....

[rwe2late]

01:03 PM on 07/09/2010

This isn't about protecting our soldiers any more than the war is about "supporting the troops.
Ground level infantry and contractors, who cannot tell one Afghan from another, short-sightedly believe they will be "safer" if they can shoot first and ask questions afterwards. Petreaus main concern is keeping civilian collateral damage out of the public eye in order to implement his "strategy" of inflicting ethnic cleansing.

There is no army opposing the invasion forces. This is not "war", it is an attempt by a heavily armed invasion force to subdue a civilian population.

Lost for all this talk about "winning" is proper consideration of the illegal, immoral, and counterproductive reasons for the continuing occupation and base-building. Sadly, the same ethically challenged thinking that the US could have "won" in Vietnam by killing a few millions more Vietnamese, now promotes the notion that we can still "win" by killing a few million more Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Iranians, Somalians, Yemenis, Gazans, Lebanese, Syrians, and any other potential enemies dreamed up by Pentagon scaremongers.
Naturally, that also entails spending a few trillions more on the military machine and curtailing basic Constitutional freedoms.

An Orwellian "victory" whereby everyone loses.

[BikeFreak]

12:27 PM on 07/09/2010

Well, if we leave, this would not be an issue!

[hagagaga]

09:55 AM on 07/09/2010

If someone pulls out a gun, shoot him.

[CigarGod]

08:36 AM on 07/09/2010

Great video.

[Macready]

05:43 AM on 07/09/2010

"According to a NATO official, American contractors hired by the Pentagon are "contributing to fueling the insurgency" by failing to pay their Afghan subcontractors, adding that because Afghans are unlikely to hire American attorneys, they have almost no chance of ever seeing payment. One company, Bennett-Fouch, is alleged to owe $1.5 million to Afghan businessman Jalaluddin Saeed for four contracts to build concrete barriers for U.S. and NATO military bases last year. Saeed had to flee Kandahar along with his family to escape angry creditors. [NYT]"

this does not surprise me at all . . . get all the troops out NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RepublicanStones]

04:07 AM on 07/09/2010

Ahh so you need the rules of engagement loosened to fight the Taliban. What would you like, anyone speaking in a language other than English is a legitimate target...too much? How about any man with a beard is fair game? Or how about you realise that by invading another country you are going to meet resistance, even from people who would never have lifted a gun before. By looking for more lax RoE your basically just taking the burden of yourself and putting it on the civilian population.

[fauker1923]

02:32 PM on 07/09/2010

the civilian population isn't fighting ISAF. The taliban, local drug lords, and other non AfPak fighters are free to engage with IEDs, EFPs, and sniper fire men who are distributing aid, food, medicine, and water to some of the poorest people on earth. Having the ability to defend yourself and fellow soldiers without the fear of going to a US military prison isn't to much to ask of our brave fighting men and women.

[Whinger]

03:09 AM on 07/09/2010

Sounds like they will be arming service personnel with paint guns next....

Taliban rules of engagement, anything goes!

[Y2KCockroach]

02:15 AM on 07/09/2010

The fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were examples of us not paying thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

Stalingrad, and the Warsaw Ghetto were examples of the Germans not paying thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

The rape of Nanking was an example of the Japanese not paying thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

The liberal use of Agent Orange, napalm, and cluster bombs in North Vietnam were more examples of us not paying thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

What the Israelis did in Gaza was an example of not paying thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

What the "war criminals" of 9-11 did was to wage war without thought to "restrictive rules of engagement".

I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.

We hung people after the Nuremberg trials, for not respecting "restrictive rules of engagement".

I supported that approach then, and I would support that approach now.

If you don't like the rules, then stay out of the game.

[billw8017]

03:39 AM on 07/09/2010

The first rule of war is to win. If you don't like the rules, you make your own. This is how war is NOT NICE and it cannot ever be nice. The British lost an army in a winter retreat in 1842. The Afghans are willing to slaughter invaders when allowed. This is not a war we want to lose.

Sir Frederick Roberts led the Kabul Field Force into Afghanistan in reprisal for the murders of the British resident and his staff. He ranged the country, won a few battles and WITHDREW. Basically the same as Alexander the Great's campaign. We should do the same: It is not a country worth the trouble of occupying it. Perhaps, no place is. The Union, for example, withdrew its armies from the South and left them to their own devices -- and that was Americans like ourselves!

[alysheba 3]

08:26 AM on 07/09/2010

Gee, that first rule got people hung at war crime trials.

But hey, we all know the US is above such petty things as the law, don't we?

[CigarGod]

08:40 AM on 07/09/2010

I think the first rule is to have your enemy place their forces in an incorrect defense.

But, maybe you were just making up your own rules.

[From the Raft]

12:36 AM on 07/09/2010

If our troop were home they could do far more good!

[mamapower]

11:38 PM on 07/08/2010

What?

You mean you are restricted from k!lling innocent people, rap!ng people and sexually humiliating them?

Oh, po thangz!

[fauker1923]

02:37 PM on 07/09/2010

The men you scorn are protecting your right to mock and shame them right now. I never saw any of the crimes you claim from our fine men and women in uniform while in either theater of war. They are professionals doing a difficult job for no thanks... please consider that.

[alysheba 3]

02:42 PM on 07/09/2010

Right. We all know that the 2 pregnant women who had bullets carved out of their dead bodies were really dastardly Taliban in disguise, right? We all know that a bus, traveling on a highway in it's own country, could never have innocent civilians on board. They are all AQ, right?

[mamapower]

03:31 PM on 07/09/2010

I have relatives in the military and a cousin that was k!lled in Afghanistan.

So you can kiss my @zz.

[Steve1976]

11:18 PM on 07/08/2010

These (soldiers in the video) are "airborne troopers", the best of the best. They want nothing more than to do the job for which they were trained. Thank goodness, with the new rules of engagement, they'll be able to do that job-- which is kill the enemy before he kills them.

[alysheba 3]

02:52 PM on 07/09/2010

By their own admission they think they win when they count bodies. How many of these guys will feel like winners when they are counting the bodies of children and women?

And you guys think the PTSD numbers are high now?