Taliban fight rules 'tying American soldiers' hands'

Elaine Donnelly

The president of the Center for Military Readiness today warned that apparent military rules of engagement for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are like tying one hand behind their backs before sending them into combat.

Elaine Donnelly, whose organization is an independent, non-partisan educational group to promote sound military personnel policies, cited reports from Joseph's Farah's exclusive G2 Bulletin that while actual rules of engagement are classified, the restrictions based on individual accounts limit night and surprise searchers, demand warnings before searches, impose a ban on shooting at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first, and ban engaging insurgents if civilians are present.

"It's the equivalent of going off to war with one hand tied behind your back," Donnelly said of the restrictions, which have been defended by a military spokesman.

She said there are potential arguments for individual restrictions, but, "Taken as a whole, they clearly reflect a set of priorities that have more to do with political correctness than the military mission."

Donnelly said it's one more example of how the goal of defeating terror worldwide has been lost on U.S. leaders who are concerned about causing offense in their effort to track down threats.

The political correctness also is reflected in the case of three Navy SEALs on trial for allegedly hitting a suspect, the longstanding government effort to prosecute Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani for a firefight with insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, and even the plan to move terrorist trials to civilian court in New York.

"The sum total of rules of engagement that make political considerations more important are both demoralizing and discouraging," she said.

A report by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin said the rules of engagement appeared to be putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy. The rules reportedly were adopted because of complaints from Afghan President Hamid Karzai about civilian deaths. Put in place by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the rules also have attracted the attention of the Taliban, which reportedly has its own forces acting on the rules in ways that benefit the terrorists.

According to the report, the restrictions include:

No night or surprise searches.

Villagers are to be warned prior to searches.

Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units on searches.

U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.

U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.

Only women can search women.

Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.

Col. Wayne M. Shanks, the chief of public affairs for the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, told WND via e-mail that there are reasons for the rules.

"We can't kill our way to success in Afghanistan," he said. "Over the long run, the best chance of mission success and ensuring the safety of our deployed forces is to seek the support of the people."

He continued, "If we build relationships with them, they will tell us where the bad guys are, they will warn us of attacks, they will resist and undermine efforts to build and equip a stronger insurgency. Preventing civilian casualties is a fabric which runs through all our operations."

Shanks said there were "significant inaccuracies in the report" but didn't actually identify any.

"Our troops always retain the right to defend themselves," he said. "ISAF's tactical directive is mostly about putting our forces in the right frame of mind to exercise that right. We can't win this battle by bombing or shooting everything. We can only prevail with the support of the people."

The statement confirmed troops are required to evaluate the circumstances before they would even return fire in their direction.

The "tactical directive" demands asking, "Even if someone might be shooting in my general direction, am I still in danger?" and, "Will I make more enemies than I'll kill by destroying property or, if I've missed something like innocent civilians?"

Shanks responded to the article's statement that some troops think the rules hamper their ability to attack the enemy.

"What they may fail to understand is in some instances a tactical gain may inadvertently cause a strategic blunder – but this does not prevent them from self-defense," he said. "This is hard – much harder that just killing everyone who looks like they're an insurgent, but is the way we are going to win this fight."

Donnelly, however, said the demands undermine the U.S. soldier and his efforts to make the world secure and terror-free.

The rules hamper "vertical cohesion," she said, the commitment troops have to their commander.

They also make soldiers wonder about their actual objective.

The community of special operations, including the Navy's SEALs, "are very alarmed," she said.

"The soldiers are aware of the potential [for trouble]," she said. "We just don't know how or when that will occur."

Multiple WND calls seeking comment from Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chief of the House Armed Services Committee, were not returned.

The original report noted that while the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive rules of engagement to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, the Taliban is well aware of them and is making adjustments accordingly.

The report said often rules of engagement require varying levels of approval before action can be taken. In one case, villagers tipped off U.S. forces to the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.

To get permission to go after the commander, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval. The final approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed it can take some 96 hours to acquire the permission to act.

In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be barred if the enemy lowers its guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack, the report said.

Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them.

The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed.

To get access to the full report, subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Previous story:

It's not just the enemy killing U.S. soldiers