NATO to Marines: Hold back in combat

[2046]

New Air-Strike guidelines:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...8xysXfClCz7oapQ

General Stanley McChrystal will issue in the next few days a directive that tells commanders to "work their way through" scenarios that could harm civilians through use of air support, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith said.

"We are not telling our forces to walk away or back up, especially if our forces are in jeopardy," he told AFP.

"But in instances when our forces can make the decision to de-escalate (a situation), they have an opportunity to more deliberately work their way through the problem," he said.

An example could be deciding not to attack insurgents in a building when it was not certain who was inside, Smith said.

If they were not in immediate danger, the troops could choose to hold back and call in aerial surveillance of the area, or put in more ground forces or work with the villagers against their targets, he said.

NATO Tactical Directive:

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_tex...tive_090706.pdf

Any entry into an Afghan house should always be accomplished by Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), with the support of local authorities, and account for the unique cultural sensitivities towards local women.

No ISAF forces [ie, Americans] will enter or fire upon, or fire into a mosque or any religious or historical site except in self-defense. All searches and entries for any other reason will be conducted by ANSF.

This is the new, kinder, gentler war. Don't want to offend the cultural sensitivities of the people who are trying to kill you.

[Chris.S]

While I disagree with holding back on the amount of force necessary in these situations if in danger, I think these new guidelines are being imposed in order to transfer more responsibility to the Afghans, and get NATO/ISAF out (that includes Canadians btw).

It's not that it's kindler and gentler, it's that we want less of our own being killed for policing actions that the Afghans should be responsible for. Patrols, house invasions, everything. Baby birds have to learn to fly sometime.

[Zip]

Chris.S is correct. In the last year much has been done to have ANA/ANP be the lead on all missions. Though they may be mentored and backed up by ISAF the idea is to have the Afghans soldier in and police Afghanistan.

However, on bug hunts like the one currently ongoing in Helmund Province ISAF is still the lead because the ANA are not ready for prime-time in such a complex operation, and that is where these guidelines are so damaging.

The real shame is we soldiers have played this game before with the UN in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and the DRC and it is a crime that NATO is forgetting those lessons so quickly.

NB* The use of force is still up to commanders on the ground and their counterparts in the Command posts. As long as those people continue to put soldiers first this "policy" is going to be stillborn. It's when the leadership rationalizes the soldier out of the equation in favor of the civilian that things get messy.

[Chris.S]

I think if that happens, people here aren't going to like it and will probably say so. Every soldier who's died so far has been in the news, and I think more of our guys dying will put some pressure on whoever is in charge to stop letting it happen. And families of soldiers getting the word out to non-military families helps a lot too. But I really don't think guys on the ground will follow these rules in hot areas anyways, not with 1 or 2 deaths a week coming from Canadians it seems.

[Zip]

not with 1 or 2 deaths a week coming from Canadians it seems.

We are nowhere near that high of an average.

[Chris.S]

"it seems"! I may have been exaggerating a bit