President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan tonight, presumably to increase the tensions between yet another ally in the War on Terrorism. While he was there, he did check in on the troops:
“I want you to know … whether you are working here on Bagram or patrolling a village down in Helmand … your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to America’s safety and security,” he told the troops.
“We did not choose this war,” Obama reminded the troops, recalling the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and warning that al-Qaida was still using the region to plan terrorist strikes against the U.S. and its allies. “We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al-Qaida and its extremist allies.”
…
“If this region slides backwards,” he said, “if the Taliban retakes this country, al-Qaida can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake, the Afghan people will lose their opportunity for progress and prosperity and the world will be significantly less secure. As long as I’m your commander in chief, I’m not going to let that happen.”
I’m glad he feels that way, if he in fact does. However, if he wants to win this war, why has he tied the hands of the folks fighting it:
Dozens of U.S. soldiers who spoke to The Washington Times during a recent visit to southern Afghanistan said these rules sometimes make a perilous mission even more difficult and dangerous.
The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimise civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. “They’re a joke,” said one. “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.”
Flopping Aces has a story of how five Marines were killed while waiting for air support that was never coming, because of the new rules of engagement.
Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor says the new ROE are working:
Since then, civilian deaths caused by international forces in Afghanistan have fallen by nearly 30 percent. Protecting the population isn’t political correctness; it’s a vital military objective and a distinct advantage over an enemy that uses civilians as shields. The drop in civilian casualties is a mark of success.
Really? Interesting, considering the author “is the executive director of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC).”
Back to the Washington Times article from above, we find this:
Many times, the soldiers said, insurgents have escaped because U.S. forces are enforcing the rules. Meanwhile, they say, the toll of U.S. dead and injured is mounting.
That was written in November of last year. Fast forward five months, you find this from the Associated Press:
The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban’s momentum.
Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, and I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, but when soldiers are saying the new rules make dangerous missions even more dangerous and Marines can’t get air support when they need it, I’m thinking the increase in casualties is due to more than just an influx of troops.
If you truly want to “disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al-Qaida and its extremist allies,” then untie the military’s hands and get out of the way.
