Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Obama ROE: Dwellings safe haven

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Obama ROE: Dwellings safe haven



    The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

    The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.

    The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

    “U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

    Ryan Zinke, who commanded an assault team within SEAL Team 6, said of the security deal: “The first people who are going to look at it and review it are the enemy we’re trying to fight. It’s going to be a document that can be used effectively against us. This is where we either fight or go home. What’s happening is we’re losing our ability to fight overseas.”

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai is holding off on signing a security deal with the U.S., ignoring the recommendation of Afghan leaders. (associated press)
    Enlarge Photo

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai is holding off on signing a security deal ... more >
    Mr. Karzai wants to defer the document’s signing to his successor in April’s presidential election, but Afghan legislators are pressing him to sign the deal now.

    Even before the security agreement’s rules of engagement were drafted, troops complained about meeting the requirements of an increasingly burdensome checklist before they can fire. The rules grew stricter in 2010 after a series of mistaken U.S. bombings killed civilians and special operations troops raided villages and homes at night.

    The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher.

    Said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, now a military analyst: “Call me crazy, but what on earth is the point of remaining there under these [rules of engagement], much less subjecting American soldiers to another set of restrictions that make sense only in proportion to your distance from the combat zone?”

    The security agreement lays out the legal status of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, when all international combat forces are set to leave the country. As many as 18,000 international troops — including 8,000 from the U.S. — will remain for 10 years to train and assist Afghan security forces and hunt terrorists.

    Terrorist-hunting missions will require U.S. personnel to engage in combat by accompanying Afghans on counterterrorism raids and supplying close-air support. That is why the rules for when U.S. troops can and cannot fire on the enemy or enter a dwelling remain important.

    A rare look at today’s classified rules of engagement is contained in the huge investigative file on the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.

    An AH-64 Apache gunship pilot said he saw the spot from where Taliban operatives fired the rocket-propelled grenade that felled the chopper.

    “Due to [rules of engagement] and tactical directives, I couldn’t fire at the building where I thought the [shooter] was, so I aimed directly to the west of the building,” the pilot testified, according to transcripts obtained by The Washington Times.

    During the battle that preceded the shootdown, the crew of an AC-130 gunship spotted two armed Taliban fighters who were moving into new positions.
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    Fucking stupid, time to GTFO. I'm dumbfounded and have no way to portray my feelings of disgust towards this.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it's time to dethrone this dickhead in chief

      Comment


      • #4
        I didnt think war was supposed to be nice. Go in, kick ass, come home.

        Comment


        • #5
          Words cannot express my anger and absolute disgust with this administration.

          Comment


          • #6
            spineless president

            Comment


            • #7
              Are we fighting a war or playing tag? I can understand that they don't want to kill innocent people, but now all the fighters have to do is stay inside and we can't touch them. That is ridiculous.

              Comment


              • #8
                Calling this a war is a little missleading. Call it what it is an Operation to restore an enduring freedom. Are we fighting, yes. But going to war is going in and killing anything remotely tied to an enemy. We are not doing that.

                In order for us to leave there has to be a transition period where we stop fighting in front of the ANA and start providing only back up and support. These NEW ROEs coincide with that. We are not searching houses, the ANA is. It has been that way for a good while now. Are the ANA turning a blind eye to caches being taken inside that US troops witnessed via JLENS and drones ? Yes. But we are leaving, let them deal with it when that shit is used against them. If they go and use it against us, we can still kill them for it.

                People want us out of Afghanistan. This is how it happens. You can not smash and stomp shit up until the day before you put 100% of your forces on a plane to leave.

                We are around 37,000 troops in country now. In 2006 when I came over, we were at 55,000+ and since then we have had double that amount. This 37,000 drops everyday. Most of them transition through where I am. It is no secret, we are closing bases down at a rapid rate. The new bullshit that Karzai is pulling by not signing the agreement, all be it is nothing new for him, is only going to increase the rate we pull out.

                Winter is a couple weeks away and even the Talib (which is kind of a joke monicker right now) don't fight in the winter. They put down their shit and go hangout until spring. By the time spring comes, we will have closed even more bases and reduced our boots on the ground even more.

                This is called the war on terror but we stopped the mass hunting of the 9/11 facilitators a long time ago. Sure they target and kill one here or there, but 95% of what we are fighting is an enemy we created. We leave and then the ANA and Afghans can deal with it. We tried to bring stability to a country that used to be a decent place. If they can not overcome the greed and tribalism, then they can continue to fail after we leave.

                /rant
                Fuck you. We're going to Costco.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Denny View Post
                  I think it's time to dethrone this dickhead in chief
                  A nice drive in the SS-100-X?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    When you wiki "neutered", post #1 is referenced.
                    Ronald Reagan:"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

                    Homer: "Bart...there's 2 things I know about women. Never give them nicknames like "jumbo" or "boxcar" and always keep receipts...it makes you look like a business man."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Seems to me a crater wouldnt leave much evidence for who was right or wrong.
                      WH

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just get out no one wants to be there and every country regrets going in.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sean88gt View Post
                          A nice drive in the SS-100-X?
                          It worked once

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X