| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| McChrystal Limits Afghan Night Raids |
| 2010-03-07 |
| [Quqnoos] A new directive from NATO's top commander in Afghanistan orders foreign forces to avoid night raids when possible The news guideline of Gen Stanley McChrystal relaseed on Friday says international troops should be accompanied by Afghan forces if they must enter homes after dark. McChrystal had issued the order in late January and portions of the classified directive were made public Friday by his headquarters. It follows the NATO commander's move to limit the use of air strikes last year that were responsible for the bulk of civilian deaths. "Despite their effectiveness and operational value, night raids come at a steep cost in terms of the perceptions of the Afghan people," according to excerpts of his directive. "In the Afghan culture, a man's home is more than just his residence. ... Even when there is no damage or injuries, Afghans can feel deeply violated and dishonored, making winning their support that much more difficult," it said. At a security conference in Munich last month, President Hamid Karzai called for an end to night raids, saying "the war on terror is not in the Afghan villages and homes". Civilian deaths and injuries inflicted during operations by international forces have caused deep anger among Afghans and drive people's support towards the Taliban. Afghan security forces "should be the first force seen and the first voices heard by the occupants of any compound entered" during a night raid, the directive added. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #12 @ #10 "Why did we spend the resource and develop the Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP), let alone the technology, to 'take back the night' since Vietnam only to surrender the night back to the enemy?" A DAMN GOOD QUESTION! It seems the only people complaining about night raids (besides Karzai)are the terrorists and their supporters. If there is a problem with the way night time raids were conducted, then we should refine or change tactics, not just stop night time raids altogether. When ever muzzies complain, you know it's an effective approach against them. Just like the muzzie resistance to full body scanners at airports. Full body scanners work so the muzzies are against them. |
| Posted by: Mike Hunt 2010-03-07 19:37 |
| #11 Restraint and appeasement might indeed be an approach that will be ultimately successful in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan mission however is not an abstract lab exercise, conducted in a political vacuum. There are global consequences. Potential (and actual) adversaries all over the world are observing what is going on in Afghanistan; and apparently western deterrence has dramatically eroded in their view. Libya has openly announced a renewed terror campaign against Europe, Argentina is making first moves to grab the Falklands. The price for restraint in Afghanistan might very well be a new armed conflict in the South Atlantic. |
| Posted by: Hupeaper Protector of the Poles4104 2010-03-07 13:43 |
| #10 Why did we spend the resource and develop the Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP), let alone the technology, to 'take back the night' since Vietnam only to surrender the night back to the enemy? Just pull them all out, then you have the ultimate no collateral damage ROE. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-07 11:30 |
| #9 I'd agree that McChrystal is correct if the objective is not to conquer the Afghans and reorder their society, the way we did the Germans and Japanese (G&J). The problem is, that means you never won the war. Look at the relationship we have with the G&J versus the Russians, whom we did not conquer but merely outlasted, by a critical decade or two as it appears. With whom are we more likely to engage adversaries on the field of conflict? Bottom line? If we aren't ready to conquer (we must when our cause it is just) and reorder a society like we did with G&J, then we should stay home. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-03-07 11:27 |
| #8 I gotta back stan the man on this one - - - making it harder for our guys, sure - - - giving us the chance to ultimately win (unlike everyone else who just came in blazing with disregard for collateral damage [Ghengis Khan, the Brits, the Rus]) is worth a shot. The clan/tribe retribution thing needs to be leveraged. The culture doesn't follow modern rules so it can't be gamed the same way. McChrystal has been a door kicker his entire career and he wouldn't take this approach if he didn't think it had advantages over the "kill'em all and let God sort them out" line. |
| Posted by: Spanky Wheack7175 2010-03-07 10:38 |
| #7 I believe he's working towards the social progressive concept of 'equal outcome'. The first 'Social Promotion' War. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-07 10:21 |
| #6 All these ROE seem to be concocted to equalize the chances, like handicapping in horse racing. |
| Posted by: Willy 2010-03-07 09:12 |
| #5 President Hamid Karzai called for an end to night raids, saying "the war on terror is not in the Afghan villages and homes". Sometimes it is. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-07 08:55 |
| #4 What makes you so sure there is any 'gunpoint' going on there gorb? Not for the smart ones, anyway. ;-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-03-07 02:30 |
| #3 What makes you so sure there is any 'gunpoint' going on there gorb? |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-03-07 02:20 |
| #2 "In the Afghan culture, a man's home is more than just his residence. ... Even when there is no damage or injuries, Afghans can feel deeply violated and dishonored, making winning their support that much more difficult," it said. I guess it's OK if the Taliban come in and take over their home to sleep in at night by gunpoint though. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-03-07 00:54 |
| #1 I imagine that the use of live ammo is offensive to Muslims and afghan men as well. Next up on the ROE bullshit? |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-03-07 00:34 |