Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

MSgt said:

True, but this is only because we have made it so thanks largely to a demand to preserve an illusion of ourselves in the drama hungry media. Fallujah II, which was criticized by many as being too hard and vicious, was a result of politiciains screwing around with our ROEs in an election year (Bush/Kerry) and stealing Fallujah I from us. Politics should never take the heart of our ROEs at the expense of military victory and success. They go too far. There have been Marines killed in Afghanistan because Army air was prohibited from attacking aggressers without Drone confirmation of enemy forces. In these cases, the politicians demand for less civilian casualties motivated ROEs that demanded visual "tower" confirmation rather than radio transmission from the ground. This takes the Beirut ROEs and uber ****s them.

These are not ROEs that come purely from a military mind. The Army would have gladly flown tothe rescue of Marines as much as they wouldtheir own soldiers (which have beenkilled for similar reasons). Political image back home does this. In the end, the enemy merely gets reprieves and the people we try not to kill merely get to go on under their abuse. What are we really achieving politicilly except a Western good image far removed from the fight? It satisfies the media, but ensures a lingering longer lasting conflict where troops and civilians pay the price.

No one in Washington knows this culture better than the military. President Clinton's lack of experience urged him to make the regional commanders politicil diplomats with their region's governmnets. This made sense because many of these governments leaders were former military leaders that worked with our commanders anyway. Our military commanders understand the politicial gains inside our ROEs. Politicians just want credit and control. What's the point of a SECDEF if others interject anyway?

Click to expand...

If ROE's are political tools only, why is Petraeus going to relax them and McChrystal was tightening them? How is it that a change in commanders can change the ROE's? It's still the same administration, the same political leaders are there. The leaders may request things from their commanders, but the ROEs in this case were made by the commander, in this instance McChrystal.

alexa said:

Given that the Afghan people wanted to get rid of the Taliban and believed they could do it themselves in a few months, yes you are losing and that lost is a direct result of unnecessary civilian deaths.

Click to expand...

....but we were "losing" Iraq too, remember? Move on and analyze it correctly. The Afghani people and their complete lack of military organization would be under Tali-Ban rule today with Al-Queda playing Scrabble in the next room. Of course, then you'd be parading around how we "lost."

alexa said:

The Afghan war is not popular in the UK and on McCrysler's dismissal a general feeling was that if policy changed we would just come out like the Canadians have before us. The hope was that because of McChryslers links with Patraeus, he might carry on in a similar way.

Unless utmost care is taken of the lives of Afghan's I think you will need to kill almost them all before you have 'won'

I read the article. If you are just going to shoot when there are civilians around without a care for killing them, then I think you will find, we are out because that will go on and on.

Click to expand...

Well, WWII in Europe wasn't popularinthe U.S. either, but we did our job and followed upon our responsibilities. That being stated, it has never been U.S. policy to "just shoot when their are civilians." This is foolish and unconstructive. We spend billions perfecting precision bombing. We spend an enormous amount of time on markmanship. But in the end, civilians are going to be killed. The only question civilians seem to evade in every war is....shall we get it over with and end this war, which saves more lives in the end, or should we linger the death along and cause unnecessary death in order to support an illusion that civilians are being saved.

alexa said:

Afghanistan is not Iraq, It's history is different. It's people too. McChrsler had imo the right approach if any approach can now end the turmoil in the country and leave it Taliban free.

Click to expand...

His approach was taken out of the Patraeus/Mattis handbook. Didn't I already tell you this? What are you thinking is going to change other than a quicker end to this war?

MSgt said:

You do not know what you are talking about. This is exactly how it works. Whether the Pentagon or an individual issues them, they come from a group of military and civilian thinkers. These thinkers involve foriegn policy and White House concerns as well as military tactic. All ROEs are issued by an individual or the Pentagon. Either way, the process is the same.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that the ROE's came from anyone other than McChrystal? Do you have single shred of evidence that shows they came from someone else? All you have is political conspiracy speculation so far. I have shown you already an article that says they came from McChrystal.

MSgt said:

Oh, c'mon. Take another look at what you are writing. So....an American General must have "his" ROEs approved by a foriegn government, but not the American government? The ROEs satisfied the demands of the political house and then they were issued. Ignoring the obvious piece of your article that suggests the truth as mere "background info" to place words on paper is highly selective in protecting your stage.

Click to expand...

You're not understanding, McChrystal is the government, he writes the ROEs. He already has the approval of the Sec of Def and President because he is the ISAF commander. When they get approval of the Canadian government, it gets approved by whoever is the Canadian commander. It doesn't need to get approved by the American commander because they were written by the American commander.

Redress said:

Except you are seeing RoEs for domestic politics, which I do not believe is the case. They serve a foreign policy purpose, which is legit.

Click to expand...

It is often the case. We criticize our foriegn policies constantly for not being able to avoid war (and some for instigating conflict), but our ROEs is supposed to support that mess? Maybe this is the problem. Our foreign policies aren't correct just because a culturally ignorant politician in a suit signs a piece of paper and makes it legit. We like to pretendagainst history that "war is a last resort." We offer our politicians diplomats off the hook for failing and talking themselves into war. And when the fall back on the military, we run to them to find ways to get us out? Or worse, to define how we are to win them while placing social and political obstacles in our path?

We haven't had any Roosevelts, Pattons and Macarthurs over the last 60 years because we give too much faith to our Mcnamaras, Bush's, and Rumsfelds. Afghanistan will be fixed enough for us to leave, because Patraeus and Mattis are the closest thing we have had to the old leaders since we as a people began looking at suits to find other means to get us out of war rather looking at military leaders to win them. Our ROEs will not change as much as to defy the politician's sense of how to win wars. But they will find a way to make them work in order for us to walk away comfortably.

MSgt said:

....but we were "losing" Iraq too, remember? Move on and analyze it correctly. The Afghani people and their complete lack of military organization would be under Tali-Ban rule today with Al-Queda playing Scrabble in the next room. Of course, then you'd be parading around how we "lost."

Click to expand...

Afghanistan started before Iraq and you know what I am talking about. Basically you are trying to change what I am saying.

Before the invasion, the Afghans were organising and had told Afghan Leader Abdul Haq that if he gave him the nod and the wink they would move on the Taliban. The Taliban themselves were a foreign unit created with US knowledge during the Soviet occupation. Abdul Haq was known to be one of the very few if not the only person capable of uniting the Afghan tribes. He warned the US that going in with bombs and killing civilians would be the very thing to put people back on the side of the Taliban.

Bush ignored everything he said and allowed him to be killed under suspicious circumstances, leaving no natural leader for Afghanistan, just the US puppet who himself now seems to favour the Taliban, something Abdul Haq never did. There is as far as I am aware no one who can now gain the trust of all the Afghan tribes.

You have been playing footbal with the lives of Afghani's up until McChrysler started seeing them as human beings whose lives should be respected with the hope of gaining their trust so that a political solution could be found.

For the rest if the intention is what I replied too and as the article seemed to suggest that you are again going to have no respect for the lives of Afghan people then enjoy your killing alone. You may not care for the lives of Afghan people but unlike yourself I believe every life is as valuable as every other.

Opteron said:

If ROE's are political tools only, why is Petraeus going to relax them and McChrystal was tightening them? How is it that a change in commanders can change the ROE's? It's still the same administration, the same political leaders are there. The leaders may request things from their commanders, but the ROEs in this case were made by the commander, in this instance McChrystal.

Click to expand...

Well, they aren't political tools "only." I didn't state that. What I stated was that our politicians have a certain image they like to keep and this interferes with military strategy far too often. It gets reflected in our ROEs. I have seen this over and over and over again. President Obama, as much as we so love him, is not the lone exception over the past 65 years.

And you are absolutely, 100% wrong in regards to the ROEs being a solo act. There is no military commander alive in any culture that would allow troops in the field to suffer by grounding air support over the possible loss of civilains in the vicinity. This is White House prescription to conduct a war with as little media attention as possible. Patraeus has gotten the same guidance, but has the advantage of a White House that has to back off a bit after what just happened. YOu have heard that ROEs will change a bit. You are assuming that we are going to start lining civilians up in front of ovens (a bit extreme, but you get my point.)

Opteron said:

Where is your evidence that the ROE's came from anyone other than McChrystal? Do you have single shred of evidence that shows they came from someone else? All you have is political conspiracy speculation so far. I have shown you already an article that says they came from McChrystal.

Click to expand...

You showed an article that contradicted your desires that ROEs come from solo individuals in dark rooms without any political oversight. You chose to ignore the part that obviously suggests political oversight. I don't need to have "evidence" into the world I have belonged to for the last 18 years. What I have is common sense and an ability to not produce articles that contradict me. Your article is my "evidence." Commanders develop ROEs that reflect White House political guidance. This is fact.

Opteron said:

You're not understanding, McChrystal is the government, he writes the ROEs. He already has the approval of the Sec of Def and President because he is the ISAF commander. When they get approval of the Canadian government, it gets approved by whoever is the Canadian commander. It doesn't need to get approved by the American commander because they were written by the American commander.

Click to expand...

No you are not understanding. You are now agreeing with me without even knowing it. You were trying to pass off that American Generals develop ROEs while ignoring any White House guidance, only to seek the approval of foriegn governments. But right here, you state that he already has the approval of the White House. YOu think he was written a blank check? And then sought foriegn governments approval to give to their commanders to approve? Contrary to your belief, American Generals aren't loose cannons. They must weigh military tactics with government political policies. It's the political policy that equates to White House interjection.

You may as well state that if a General wants the ROEs to reflect the use of nuclear weapons, that the White House has nothing to do with it.

Aunt Spiker said:

What's your opinion on their voting values and reasons?

Click to expand...

In the first place, the Afghan Arab part in A-stan is much over-rated in my opinion. Taliban is not Arab.

Now, on the voting.... Did the Afghans have 100% participation in the voting and what was the turn out?

MSgt said:

Well, they aren't political tools "only." I didn't state that. What I stated was that our politicians have a certain image they like to keep and this interferes with military strategy far too often. It gets reflected in our ROEs. I have seen this over and over and over again. President Obama, as much as we so love him, is not the lone exception over the past 65 years.

And you are absolutely, 100% wrong in regards to the ROEs being a solo act. There is no military commander alive in any culture that would allow troops in the field to suffer by grounding air support over the possible loss of civilains in the vicinity. This is White House prescription to conduct a war with as little media attention as possible. Patraeus has gotten the same guidance, but has the advantage of a White House that has to back off a bit after what just happened. YOu have heard that ROEs will change a bit. You are assuming that we are going to start lining civilians up in front of ovens (a bit extreme, but you get my point.)

Click to expand...

There is a base level of ROEs that are done by the Pentagon, such as don't shoot civilians, but these ROEs that you need a placard for were done by McChrystal. Don't forget, McChrystal closed Burger King too, are you going to blame that on politicians, Obama, pentagon too?

Oh, Ric - further my point in my previous post . . . It's absurd to suggest that our situation in Iraq isn't related in any way to our situation in Afghanistan when Petreus played *the* most critical role in Iraq - and now plays the most critical role in Afghanistan.

If you don't' think he won't use what he learned and knows via Al Qaeda issue and apply it to the Taliban you're fooling yourself.

Aunt Spiker said:

Oh, Ric - further my point in my previous post . . . It's absurd to suggest that our situation in Iraq isn't related in any way to our situation in Afghanistan when Petreus played *the* most critical role in Iraq - and now plays the most critical role in Afghanistan.

If you don't' think he won't use what he learned and knows via Al Qaeda issue and apply it to the Taliban you're fooling yourself.

Click to expand...

You do realize that not letting them (Taliban) participate in elections and declaring them unrepresentative is an age-old tactic in the strategy of de-legitimatizing the the government right? We did not let them participate and another point....How many of the elected are working behind the scenes on things that favor the Taliban? We will leave, the government will collapse and they or somebody else will fill the void.

Thats inevitable, so why continue there?

alexa said:

You have been playing footbal with the lives of Afghani's up until McChrysler started seeing them as human beings whose lives should be respected with the hope of gaining their trust so that a political solution could be found.

Click to expand...

We have largely ignored Afghanistan for whatever reason up until 18 months ago. McChrystal is just the name people know when focus went back. He looked at Afghanistan the same way Patraeus and Mattis looked at Iraq. What are you expecting to change other than a quicker end?

Why is it that you people ignore the fact that political solutions failed us into war as you seek the same rabble to get us out? The military already has the politicial solutions. Suits are not required. They can busy themselves talking us into another war somewhere else into fruition. "Politicial Solutions" to get out of wars that they put us in has been a public fad and a means to cling to a false illusion of ourselves since 1945. It's not the military that create these wars. Nor has been the military that have screwed them up by looking for ways out of them rather than winning them.

alexa said:

For the rest if the intention is what I replied too and as the article seemed to suggest that you are again going to have no respect for the lives of Afghan people then enjoy your killing alone.

Click to expand...

You assume an extreme intention for nothing. I have stated enough times that McChrystal, Patraeus, and Mattis come from the same pool of cultural understanding in this region.

alexa said:

You may not care for the lives of Afghan people but unlike yourself I believe every life is as valuable as every other.

Click to expand...

Well since you are making an assumption about me, because I don't cower behind false illusions, I shall make a general assumption of you. I believe that is what is considered fair, right?.....

You, like so many, are simply full of ****. I don't believe you care about any of them. How many have you met? Shook an Afghani hand lately? You care more about your illusion of yourself than what is actually going on. You believe that seeking other means to get out of war will some how save lives, but all you really guarantee is a lingering occupation that causes more aggravation, politicial mess, and death over an extended period of time. It's the fear of conducting war that makes them last. It's the fear of what we might look like that strips our commanders of the ability to win them quickly and decisively, which actually delivers less civilian death. "Other means" merely offers our enemy breathing space and the ability to adapt to our tactics, which inturn makes us shift gears, which inturn causes more death.

You preach that you value the lives of the Afghani people. You would care less about them if 9/11 hadn't happened and directed your focus on the Tali-ban, where they had already been suffering for well over a decade (when it wasn't supposed to "be our problem"). The same is true over in Iraq when President Clinton and the UN bombed it four separate times and helped Saddam Hussein starve them for 13 years. But after we invade...we care about their lives, right? You only care about keeping your illusions intact. If anybody cares, it's the military personel who are actively over there sweating and bleeding to secure them a chance to progress and move on so that we can be safer in the region by preventing the one chance Al-Queda has for a base of operations.

I truly care. And this is why I seek perfect understanding about all the issues rather than cling to media headlines and reporter wisdom. Most of which even the Afghani people laugh at. While I believe that you are well intentioned, I don't believe it is grounded in some personal care about them. It makes me think of the protests people had over Vietnam as they professed to care about their lives, but looked quickly away as the Cambodians slaughytered them after we left. I guess they no longer cared.

MSgt said:

You showed an article that contradicted your desires that ROEs come from solo individuals in dark rooms without any political oversight. You chose to ignore the part that obviously suggests political oversight. I don't need to have "evidence" into the world I have belonged to for the last 18 years. What I have is common sense and an ability to not produce articles that contradict me. Your article is my "evidence." Commanders develop ROEs that reflect White House political guidance. This is fact.

Click to expand...

Uhh ... no, I showed an article that says the ROEs came from McChrystal. I'm not ignoring any part of the article. I don't stretch part of the article to try to become part of the spin you want it to be. Great, you don't need to have evidence or facts for a debate, wow. So you don't rely on facts, you just pull stuff from a hat, you're obviously wrong then, not much point arguing with you any further.

MSgt said:

No you are not understanding. You are now agreeing with me without even knowing it. You were trying to pass off that American Generals develop ROEs while ignoring any White House guidance, only to seek the approval of foriegn governments. But right here, you state that he already has the approval of the White House. YOu think he was written a blank check? And then sought foriegn governments approval to give to their commanders to approve? Contrary to your belief, American Generals aren't loose cannons. They must weigh military tactics with government political policies. It's the political policy that equates to White House interjection.

You may as well state that if a General wants the ROEs to reflect the use of nuclear weapons, that the White House has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

When did I say American generals develop ROEs without any guidance? I'm saying McChrystal was responsible for the ROEs he created. Where does it say he sought approval of foreign governments when the ROE were issued? You're making stuff up. It simply says they have to be cleared first before they go into effect for Canada and in all likelihood there will be no problem.

Opteron said:

There is a base level of ROEs that are done by the Pentagon, such as don't shoot civilians, but these ROEs that you need a placard for were done by McChrystal. Don't forget, McChrystal closed Burger King too, are you going to blame that on politicians, Obama, pentagon too?

Click to expand...

Well, what does closing a Burger King have to do with Rules of Engagment? I'm not in the habit of placing, nor relieving, blame no matter who sits on the White House throne. It is what it is. Rules of Engagment in every war since WWII have come from much higher than one General's ideas. Once again, Obama's White House is not an exception.

Opteron said:

Uhh ... no, I showed an article that says the ROEs came from McChrystal. I'm not ignoring any part of the article. I don't stretch part of the article to try to become part of the spin you want it to be. Great, you don't need to have evidence or facts for a debate, wow. So you don't rely on facts, you just pull stuff from a hat, you're obviously wrong then, not much point arguing with you any further.


When did I say American generals develop ROEs without any guidance? I'm saying McChrystal was responsible for the ROEs he created. Where does it say he sought approval of foreign governments when the ROE were issued? You're making stuff up. It simply says they have to be cleared first before they go into effect for Canada and in all likelihood there will be no problem.

Click to expand...

Don't ask me where it is. READ....YOUR.....OWN...DAMN....ARTICLE...AND YOUR...OWN...POSTS. You expressly offered up "how it is" by stating that McChrystal developed his own ROEs, handed them to the Canadian government, so that it could hand them to Canadian commanders for approval. You then offered up that the McChrystal did so haviong already the approval of the White House. First you offered up an article that contradicted your "lone gunman" theory, then you chose to ignore the part of it that showed otherwise, then you chose to throw the White House is there as "approving," then you asked where all of this is. I agree that you didn't stretch anything. You outright ignored everything in the article beyond a single sentence and then tried to imply that none ofthat really mattered.

Every President since WWII has had a hand in military affairs and ROEs except President Obama's White House? He is the one lone exception and McChrystal was dictating policy with no political rules placed before him as he sought foriegn approval for what was solely his demands? This is where you are stretching.

MSgt said:

Well, what does closing a Burger King have to do with Rules of Engagment? I'm not in the habit of placing, nor relieving, blame no matter who sits on the White House throne. It is what it is. Rules of Engagment in every war since WWII have come from much higher than one General's ideas. Once again, Obama's White House is not an exception.

Click to expand...

Closing Burger King shows that this general makes somewhat brash decisions or is wrong, including the ROE that he made. And it also shows that this general has significant autonomy over his mission.

Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it's the same this time. Just because it happened in WWII or Vietnam doesn't mean it happened in Afghanistan.

This is not me saying this....

Retired Gen. James Jones - National Security Adviser

"The al-Qaida presence is very diminished,'' he said. "The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.''

Click to expand...

Obama Adviser: Afghanistan Gov't Must Do Better - WCBS NEWSRADIO 880


When we first went in, we could have clearly stated "We are only here as long as there are AQ to kill, but where we ****ed up went in promising to fix everything.

Nation building is screwing us over and over

Yeah, I don't understand closing the fast food chains and first-run theaters because "this is a warzone, not an amusement park".
I mean, we allegedly "won" in Iraq, and bases there are a lot larger and more like "an amusement park" than Bagram or any other base in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, my friend recently returned from Afghanistan, and she told me that obesity among soldiers is becoming a major problem over there. Maybe McCrystal just wants them in top physical condition, for their own safety. Top fighting form.
McCrystal himself is a rather spartan individual; one doubts he eats much Burger King.
He allegedly gets up and jogs like ten miles every morning at 5 am, and that's his recreation for the day.
I've heard Petraeus is somewhat similar in his habits, although he is talking about possibly bringing Burger King back... or at least saying he won't rule it out.

Gen. Petraeus Not Ruling Out Bringing Burger King Back To Afghanistan - The Consumerist

Today I feel more optimistic; I think things might get a little better for our troops in Afghanistan under Petraeus.
Several enlisted folks I've talked to are optimistic about the change.

MSgt said:

Don't ask me where it is. READ....YOUR.....OWN...DAMN....ARTICLE...AND YOUR...OWN...POSTS. You expressly offered up "how it is" by stating that McChrystal developed his own ROEs, handed them to the Canadian government, so that it could hand them to Canadian commanders for approval. You then offered up that the McChrystal did so haviong already the approval of the White House. First you offered up an article that contradicted your "lone gunman" theory, then you chose to ignore the part of it that showed otherwise, then you chose to throw the White House is there as "approving," then you asked where all of this is. I agree that you didn't stretch anything. You outright ignored everything in the article beyond a single sentence and then tried to imply that none ofthat really mattered.

Click to expand...

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE AT ALL. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN IT'S POSTED HERE: New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage
How in the world does the article contradict the "lone gunman" theory??? The entire article supports everything I have said. You're trying to spin it that somehow the article contradicts itself, wow. And you're trying to spin that because the Canadian commander has to approve the ROE, somehow all ROE are products of their political leaders? You're wrong.

1069 said:

Yeah, I don't understand closing the fast food chains and first-run theaters because "this is a warzone, not an amusement park".

Click to expand...

No offense, but of course you don't understand it. How could you possibly understand something that you have no experience in? People who've never been in the military (myself included) should stick to what we know instead of trying to second guess the experts.

Opteron said:

Closing Burger King shows that this general makes somewhat brash decisions or is wrong, including the ROE that he made. And it also shows that this general has significant autonomy over his mission.

Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it's the same this time. Just because it happened in WWII or Vietnam doesn't mean it happened in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Alright, alright. My current Commander-in-Chief is a saint above all else and you have the inside McChrystal scoop.

Closing a Burger King has nothing to do with government ROE's and all commanders have a measure of autonomy in their commands. This includes the Whopper. ROEs are above a military solo act. If he replaced another commander who was criticized over civilian deaths, then his job came with guidance to stray from civilian deaths. Hence the politicial interjection of the ROEs. What I see is one side seeking to tear down a President because he is Obama and another side seeking to tear down a General because the President is Obama.

alms said:

No offense, but of course you don't understand it. How could you possibly understand something that you have no experience in? People who've never been in the military (myself included) should stick to what we know instead of trying to second guess the experts.

Click to expand...

My son is in the army, and will be in Afghanistan within months.
I make it my business to understand as much as possible about every aspect of both the dangers and the living conditions he'll be exposed to there.

1069 said:

My son is in the army, and will be in Afghanistan within months.
I make it my business to understand as much as possible about every aspect of both the dangers and the living conditions he'll be exposed to there.

Click to expand...

My brother is in the Marines, and he's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, both as a Scout Sniper and an infantry platoon commander. That doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about as it pertains to military matters. Sure, I can attempt to obtain a superficial understanding of the military but unless I actually go through the experience I'll never move past the surface. That's all I'm trying to say.

Closing Burger King shows that this general makes somewhat brash decisions or is wrong, including the ROE that he made.

Click to expand...

Well, to his credit, I don't think it was a "brash" decision.
I do think it was an unnecessary one, however.
McCrystal presented it as a supply issue, as if it were a choice between "Burger King or your mail", or "Burger King or ammunition".
I believe, however, that this is a false dichotomy.
There are many supplies trucked in to Afghanistan daily that are not crucial to survival.
If the fast food joints help keep the soldiers' morale up, then I don't see why they shouldn't have them.

1069 said:

Several enlisted folks I've talked to are optimistic about the change.

Click to expand...

Hell, yeah. The Marine Corps is psyched. It was the Patraeus/Mattis/Nasr team that brought Iraq around and it was largely their model McChrystal was applying.