Comparing an insurgency to all out war doesn’t work and you know it. We are not at war with Afghanistan are we Del? Do I really have to explain why civilian casualties help the enemy in this type of conflict?

I think we are at war with Afghanistan, if Afghanistan wants a negotiated peace with Al Qaeda/Taliban. I thought we weren’t accepting neutrality?

Please do explain why we can’t kill, say, 3 million hostiles who hit America first. That’s just a guess, not an upward limit. I have no upward limit.

Have you ever seen the inside of an Afghan mud hut? Unless it had wheels 6 feet high it’s not going to navigate around at all. Plus what am I going to leave behind that I need know in my rucksack to carry that thing. When it’s looking around it better be bullet proof since the bad guys are shot at it, and on top of that I lose the element of surprise sitting around the front door remote controlling a robot and become a stationary target. I’d rather throw a flash bang and do a forced entry.

I thought our guys cracked this in 1942. Flamethrowers and grenades kill people you can’t see. Close the hole with a satchel charge. Repeat as necessary.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Those are the numbers reported by the Afghan government. The Pentagon disputes the numbers but does not dispute the fact that protocols were ignored in the attack.

Comparing an insurgency to all out war doesn’t work and you know it. We are not at war with Afghanistan are we Del? Do I really have to explain why civilian casualties help the enemy in this type of conflict?

“When we are in position, one of the things we’ll do is review all of our rules of engagement and all the instructions to our units, with the emphasis that we are fighting for the population.

“That involves protecting them both from the enemy and from unintended consequences of our operation, because we know that although an operation may be conducted for the right reason, if it has negative effects it can have a negative outcome for everyone.” Gen Patreaus at the onset of the review…

Buford Gooch on June 22, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Who told you that – the procurement officer? Just because the military buys it does not mean the guys who have to use it like it.

Well, it seems to be doing the job so far.

Buford Gooch on June 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Have you ever seen the inside of an Afghan mud hut? Unless it had wheels 6 feet high it’s not going to navigate around at all. Plus what am I going to leave behind that I need know in my rucksack to carry that thing. When it’s looking around it better be bullet proof since the bad guys are shot at it, and on top of that I lose the element of surprise sitting around the front door remote controlling a robot and become a stationary target. I’d rather throw a flash bang and do a forced entry.
Good for the police here – not so good over in the ME.

Just last month 140 civilians were killed by the US in one strike. That helps no one but the enemy.

lexhamfox on June 22, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Well, it depends on who is “reporting” this. Many such claims in the past have proven to be false.

Just curious-how did the massive civilian casualties at Dresden “help” Hitler? And how did the massive civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “help” the Emperor?

In reality, dropping the A-bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

You are mistaken. The soldiers still kick in the door, they just put the robot in to look around and take the bullets before going in and shooting the bad guys. The robots fit in their rucksacks.

Buford Gooch on June 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM

OMG another gadget guy. People this stuff does not work in the sh!thole know as Afghanistan. It takes soldiers kicking in the door and shooting the bad guy in the head. There is no easy alternative.

dmann on June 22, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Thank you – so please believe me that this is a bad thing and will get more soldiers killed.

Prudent commanders always attempt to minimize risk and resolve conflicts as quickly and efficiently as possible by using every weapon system at their disposal

This is true but almost there is no way to use every weapons system and abide by the ROE as it stood before. The enemy is not visible enough to bomb or even mortar. You have to go and dig them out if you can find them.

dpierson on June 22, 2009 at 5:28 PM

And you should be, I’m proud of you too, thanks!

Romeo13 on June 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Beat me too it. I was not in Beruit 1882-1984, but knew plenty who were there. The Rules of Engagement (ROE’s) were absolutely silly and cost lives, American lives.

If you are interested in Beruit and America’s involvement during that period, I recommend “The Root: The Marines in Beirut,August 1982-February 1984″ by Eric Hammel. After the bombing, Division CG General Al Gray gave unprecendented access to the Marines of 2nd Marine Division so the author could write his book. And the author pulled no punches. Once example concerning an ROE:

Paraphrasing this, but basically the ROE said that a US Servicemember could not engage an enemy unless the enemy was actively shooting at them, and they still had to have permission first to shoot back from higher authority. In the book, the Marines describe how a towel head would walk to a cafe on the edge of town near airport first thing in the morning with his AK-47 slung over his shoulder in plain view (but he wasn’t shooting it, yet). The turd had breakfeast and then proceeded to his fighing position closer to the airport where he would spend the day shooting at the Marines. When it got late in the day, the turd slung his rifle back over his shoulder (now not shooting it) and walked back to the cafe for dinner before heading home for the night, just to return the next day and do it all over again.

And that’s not the worst example, just the silliest.

We should work hard to prevent collateral damage, but I am suspect of this announcement. First, why announce it? Part of the strategy to allow the Taliban to get their numbers up and collective spines up enough to come out and fight? I’m not sure. But ROE’s should never increase the danger for American Servicemembers, that much I’m sure of.

dmann on June 22, 2009 at 5:26 PM

I am proud to be a 3rd generation grunt fighting for my country.

dpierson on June 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Given the assumptions you have made regarding my comments along with the accusation of arm chair quarterbacking I do believe you have represented yourself quite well…GRUNT.

It’s the basic conundrum of fighting terrorists. How do you kill them without making more of them?

Simple. Make as many as possible, and when they are all dead, the war is over. Brutal, but it is the truth of war. All wars.

Now the poor bastards in the towns and villages will be held hostage by the ratbags.

dmann on June 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Another thing: I am tired of this arm chair quarterbacking from home. Just bomb em, use this gadget, use that gadget. This thinking caused me to deploy with crappy body armor, an unarmored hummer, shitty boots and on and on, while the military spends millions on video game gadgets and the airforce gets more B2s. Every single war we have fought is won on the ground – that’s where the funds should go.

dmann on June 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Dude I was over there and have called in airstrikes myself. Most of the really big collateral damage comes from intelligence triggered, non-observed airstrikes.
Point is that bad use of this approach now has caused a change in ROE so that we can’t even go in kick down doors anymore to do real surgical strikes.
Prudent commanders know what it is like to fight an asymmetrical conflict and understand that air and artillery is not the best weapon.
You also forget that the motto is: Accomplish the mission, protect the force. Not the other way around.
This is not a video game and no amount of technology can win that war. Its grunts on the ground that are going to win this.

dpierson on June 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Prudent commanders always attempt to minimize risk and resolve conflicts as quickly and efficiently as possible by using every weapon system at their disposal. The vast majority of tactical air support missions are called in after boots on the ground have encountered substantial resistance and not as a method to avoid knocking on doors. Please look before you leap!