# Rules of war in Afghanistan



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

this just plain sucks..

Troops complain rules of engagement give Taliban advantage
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
02/15/10 4:29 PM EST 
The AP has a dismaying report from Afghanistan:

Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap - strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon - or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooter.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... z0feobSJzZ


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I find this particularly disgusting, that our troops have to respond in this manner when engaging the enemy, but the politicians brag about how effective they have been with drones firing rockets or dropping bombs. It's alright for the rockets and bombs to have collateral damage, but heaven forbid one of our service people should have any.

Speaking as the parent of a Marine, who will be deploying to Afghanistan in a few months.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Remember how the liberals complained that Iraq was another Viet Nam? It was far from it, but these stupid rules of engagement are the same type our soldiers were saddled with in Viet Nam. Who was president then? These stupid rules of engagement in Viet Nam begin on Johnson. 
Sometimes I think they want illegal aliens because they are future democrats, and it makes little difference if our soldiers die because they are current conservatives.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

There are people in this world who get other people killed,and they write it off as a form of politicly correct. A plague on their house is what I say. As you can see i am not politicly correct. As I don't think a pre established thought can make you right when you are wrong.


----------



## Bug Guy (Jul 19, 2009)

Having been there and lived with this type of a battle plan for almost a year in 2007, I can say that the statements made in the original post are absoulutely true. Please keep our troopers in your thoughts and prayers on a daily basis. They are paying for these policies, not the politicians.


----------



## r-22 pilot (Aug 7, 2010)

I am currently on my third and final deployment to Iraq and yes the ROE is getting redicuous. The reason for this is because everyone is jumping on the COIN (counter insurgency) band wagon. Now with General Petraeus running the show in Afganistan it is only going to get worse, since he is the man behind COIN.

With the ROE it is all in the wording: Did you feel threatend? Yes, Did you positively identify your target? Yes. You are pretty much clear. The biggest problem with the ROE is the "new guys" on their first deployment being to afraid to fire their weapon for fear of getting in trouble. Another huge issue is you can't take care of people you know are bad because you don't have any evidence. They treat this like we are police to the point where they have retired officers come over and give us classes on evidence and police procedures. Also you can no longer can go into a persons home to search it after say a shot gets taken at us, because we don't have a warrant to seach that person; and if you have a warrant for the person and not a warrant to seach the property you can get the guy, but you're not allowed to seach his home or property. Are you F'n kidding me!

So I guess in my unorganized rant, it's not so much the shooting back at people that is the issue it's the fact we have our hands tied on anything that doesn't involve direct contact.

On an upside I am leaving Iraq in a couple weeks and will be back in ND to hunt for the first time in 6 years!!


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks for your service, R-22. Get home safe!


----------

