| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| 2010 Afghan airstrikes running at 1/4 of the rate in 2007 - Jun 10 YTD killed = 322, Jun 07 YTD |
| 2010-07-14 |
| I think we're about to find out the truth about counterinsurgency, which is that it is basically a mopping-up operation possible only after you've wiped out big chunks of the enemy's forces. Meanwhile, the softly-softly approach begins to rack up a body count similar to what we saw in the highest casualty months in Iraq: Warplanes in Afghanistan are dropping bombs and missiles on insurgents at about 25% of the rate they did three years ago despite more widespread combat, reflecting commanders' emphasis on reducing civilian deaths. So far this year, jets have dropped bombs on only 10% of their combat support missions, compared with almost 40% in 2007, Air Force records show. The decline coincides with the arrival of most of the additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Obama. Attacks on U.S. and allied troops — as well as deaths — are at all-time highs. The reduction in bombing comes amid debate about rules restricting the use of overwhelming firepower for troops in combat. Some military analysts, including Barry Watts, who flew combat missions in Vietnam, say the rules have increased risk to ground forces fighting the Taliban. "My sort of gut reaction is that there is frustration about the rules of engagement," said Watts of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It looks to me like it's gone a little too far in terms of limiting (civilian casualties)." Meanwhile, commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, the top officer in Afghanistan, have said they will examine how the directives that govern the use of firepower, including airstrikes, are practiced in Afghanistan. Petraeus and other commanders have drawn a distinction between the rules, which are aimed at protecting civilians, and how they are implemented, suggesting that the review will focus on whether some commanders have placed too many restrictions on firepower. The rules are being reviewed to ensure troops don't misinterpret them and are able to use firepower when needed. Petraeus "wants to make sure that as we move forward with any adjustments, if there are any, that we continue to protect the Afghan civilians as much ... as we possibly can," said Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the No. 2 allied commander in Afghanistan. Still, Rodriguez said he was not aware of any incident in which airstrikes were denied when troops were in a tight spot. Eliminating civilian deaths can reduce attacks on coalition troops, according to a recent study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research. If two civilian deaths from a coalition attack could be eliminated, there would be six fewer violent incidents in the area in the next six weeks, the study showed. The report was done for commanders and briefed to top military officials. Military operations that alienate the public spur insurgents' recruiting and overall support, the study said. Marines often face the tension of protecting civilians while also fighting the Taliban. A Marine who loses a friend in a fight "will drop a bomb on any man," said Marine Col. Randall Newman, a regimental commander in Helmand province. Sometimes commanders have to hold the impulses of the Marines in check if civilians are at risk. So far, Newman said, the rules haven't hurt his ability to fight the enemy and firepower is used when appropriate. "I've got every tool in the toolbox and we use them when appropriate," he said. One complication, Newman said, is that the enemy knows the firepower restrictions, too, and incorporates that into its tactics. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #8 Geneva Convention rules should only apply if the warring parties qualify...ie...uniformed combatants. If the enemy doesn't wear uniforms is not readily identifiable and hides between women and children, how do we know if it's civilians that we killed? And because of this there is no way to prevent collateral damage and civilian deaths. |
| Posted by: Mike Hunt 2010-07-14 22:25 |
| #7 I suspect BEIJING = CHINA recognizes that iff the US phased withdrawal from Afghanistan = AFPAK is delayed for any reason, the Radic Islamist Militant Groups will simply cross over the borders into WEST CHINA, INDJUH [India] + OTHER CENTRAL ASIA STATES, + create shennanigans anew. Which is why CHINA is escalating or intensifying its VARIOUS BILATERAL COOPS WID ISLAMABAD [AMAP before 2011 + after]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-07-14 19:46 |
| #6 Which approach worked better? From 2007 to 2010, coalition deaths more than tripled. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2010-07-14 18:21 |
| #5 .....said Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the No. 2 allied commander in Afghanistan. Still, Rodriguez said he was not aware of any incident in which airstrikes were denied when troops were in a tight spot. Let me help you General. Under the current ROE, Air strikes, arty, even returning fire cannot even be requested or conducted unless the troops in contact have PID" (positive ID) of the enemy. So, as a starting point, take a count of the engagements less PID. It shouldn't be too difficult, there are many each week. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-14 17:31 |
| #4 Which approach worked better? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-07-14 17:21 |
| #3 When will the WH ostriches take their head out of their sand pit and see reality? Not before November 2012, if ever. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-07-14 13:34 |
| #2 It must be difficult to fight an unnamed enemy. When will the WH ostriches take their head out of their sand pit and see reality? |
| Posted by: Willy 2010-07-14 13:22 |
| #1 Jun 07 YTD = 99 |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2010-07-14 13:02 |