Afghan Strikes Broke Rules

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

U.S. Says Afghan Strikes Broke Rules, Orders Retraining
Peter Graff, Reuters, 20 Jun 2009

The United States will order all its troops in Afghanistan to undergo new training after concluding that pilots violated orders in air strikes last month that it accepts may have killed as many as 86 civilians.

In a long-awaited report, released six weeks after U.S. B1 bombers killed large numbers of civilians unleashing fury among Afghans, the Pentagon acknowledged that rules had not been followed, although it said the mistakes fell short of breaking the law.

The bombings took place on May 4 in western Afghanistan after a day-long battle that saw Afghan security forces ambushed by Taliban fighters and U.S. Marines come to their aid.

After nightfall, B1 bombers observed groups of people moving into two houses and a mosque. Pilots concluded they were fighters and bombed the buildings.

However, the report said pilots broke guidelines by striking without checking whether civilians were in the buildings.

The strikes, "while complying with the (laws of armed conflict) did not adhere to all of the specific guidance and Commander's Intent contained in the controlling directive," it said.

"Not applying all of that guidance likely resulted in civilian casualties."

While the report noted that U.S. investigators had concluded that about 26 civilians and about 76 fighters had died, it acknowledged the figures were imprecise and said the true civilian death toll would never be known.

But in the military's first public acknowledgement of Afghan accounts of much larger civilian tolls, the report noted that an Afghan human rights agency had concluded that 86 civilians had died and praised its findings as "balanced" and "thorough."

"NO IMMINENT THREAT"

The report, released by Central Command responsible for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, said the military needed to refine its rules for using weapons in Afghanistan, which should be published in new "stand-alone documents."

"Once this guidance is published, units will need to conduct immediate training/re-training of all personnel in theater," it said.

The report supports accounts from Afghan villagers that the B1 bombings after dark occurred far from the battle zone.

One of the buildings, which the B1 flattened with two 2,000 lb (900 kg) bombs and two 500 lb bombs, was more than a kilometer away from where U.S. and Afghan government troops were taking intermittent fire.

The report accepted that pilots and ground controllers believed the groups of people they were observing were fighters who might mass for an attack. But it acknowledged they were not firing from the buildings at the time they were struck.

While U.S. rules of engagement are not public, a senior U.S. military official in Kabul said this week they generally prohibit striking buildings unless steps are taking to ensure no civilians are inside, or troops on the ground are taking fire from them.

"You can see from the video, no one was firing (from the buildings). There was no imminent threat," the official said. "There needs to be an imminent threat."

The report made no mention of the Taliban deliberately using civilians as human shields in the incident, an assertion that became the main emphasis of U.S. military statements about the bombings in the weeks after they took place.

The official acknowledged there was no firm evidence to prove the human shield allegation.

The bombings took place while Defense Secretary Robert Gates was on his way to Afghanistan to inform the commander of U.S. forces that he would be replaced. The new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, has said he will take new steps to reduce civilian casualties, which threaten Afghan support for the war.

The report faulted the public response, saying U.S. forces "must develop a more effective method" of communications.

It said the military needs to set up an investigative team headed by a general who could deploy to the scene of incidents involving suspected civilian casualties within two hours.

After the bombing last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai went on U.S. television and called for an end to air strikes.

The report said it did not recommend a halt to close air support, especially when friendly forces were under fire.

"However, absent a direct or imminent threat, we must pursue a tactical approach that prioritizes avoidance of civilian casualties as a fundamental aspect of mission success."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090620/...stan_strikes_1

[zuluzerosix]

Yeah.....I am sure the enemy fights by the "rules." I am sure they have never violated any laws of land warefare.

[Basenshukai]

"However, absent a direct or imminent threat, we must pursue a tactical approach that prioritizes avoidance of civilian casualties as a fundamental aspect of mission success."

I don't see how this is any different from what we have already been trained to do.

[nmap]

However, the report said pilots broke guidelines by striking without checking whether civilians were in the buildings.

Perhaps the pilots should phone first. If there isn't an answer, then no civilians are home.

[Eagle5US]

I think this conclusion was forgone WELL before the investigation was even STARTED.
Our "foreign policy" now consists solely on acceptance of blame and issuing apologies for everything that could hurt anyone's feelings....except for American's feelings of course.

Eagle

[Stras]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/...d1c2JhdHRsZXI-

New US battle rule: No fighting near Afghan homes

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jun 22, 2:34 pm ET
KABUL – The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.

The most contentious civilian casualty cases in recent years occurred during battles in Afghan villages when U.S. airstrikes aimed at militants also killed civilians. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and international forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pressed U.S. forces for years to reduce civilian casualties, but his pleas have done little to stem the problem. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence" — not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said. The order should have the effect of reducing the use of airstrikes, mortars and artillery in villages.

McChrystal, who took command one week ago, has already given the order to commanders in northern and eastern Afghanistan he has met with. The four-star general will meet with commanders in the south and west in coming days. Soon after the visits are completed, the new directive will be formalized, Smith said.

In the most recent civilian deaths case, a May 4-5 battle between U.S. and Afghan forces and militants in western Farah province killed dozens of civilians. A U.S. report last week said U.S. forces killed an estimated 26 civilians. However, Karzai's government says 140 were killed, while an Afghan human rights group says the number is about 100.

"This new policy shows that they've really taken on board the fact of the matter in Afghanistan — that you lose the war if you lose the people," said Sarah Holewinski, the executive director of the Washington-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. "I was heartened by McChrystal's remarks last week stating that, and am now further heartened to see that he's backing those statements up with policies to protect civilians. This is what we've wanted all along."

Still, she said the policy has potential drawbacks, specifically that once Taliban fighters learn of the directive, civilian homes will be the perfect place to seek cover.

Holewinski noted the policy will still allow troops to use airstrikes when they are in danger.

Smith said McChrystal will address in the coming months how U.S. and NATO forces are deployed around the country, and forces could be withdrawn from remote regions in order to concentrate troops around population centers.

In the latest violence, a suicide bomber on a motorbike killed seven civilians Monday when he drove into the center of an eastern Afghan city and set off explosives.

The bomber detonated explosives on his motorbike in front of Khost city's electric power headquarters and then explosives on his body a few minutes later, said Kuchi Naseri, a spokesman for the governor of Khost province. The Interior Ministry said seven people were killed.

The target of the attack was unclear. There were no military or police nearby, Naseri said, but the later blast may have been planned to hit police or officials rushing to the scene. Another 30 people in the area were wounded, he said.

In southern Kandahar province, another suicide bomber killed three Afghan soldiers in an attack on a convoy of troops inspecting a highway bridge for explosives, said Zadi district Police Chief Niaz Mohammad Serhadi.

In eastern Nangarhar province, an explosion at a weapons cache killed a 6-year-old boy and wounded 20 others, police said.

___

Associated Press writers Amir Shah in Kabul and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

My comments...

This seems like the starting of our boys having their hands tied behind their backs. There comes a point where collateral damage just happens.

Next thing you know, we'll be paying war reparations for all the dead civilians from WWII when we firebombed Dresden... and all the millions of kids that they may have had, and their kids, etc..
.

[zuluzerosix]

We're done. Now they have a safe haven.


""But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

"McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."


Then why stay in Afganistan if this is how we are going to fight?

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by zuluzerosix

We're done. Now they have a safe haven.


""But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

"McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."


Then why stay in Afganistan if this is how we are going to fight?

ZZ6,

WTF,are we doing in Afganistan if this is how we are going to fight for their nation?

Big Teddy

[zuluzerosix]

I think it is wrong. Dead wrong. These guys can spring a far ambush then run into a village and hide behind civillians. As I read the article US Forces can't persue them? It's just plain wrong. You should be able to chase them anywhere, IMHO. Anywhere. They can die where they hide for all I care.

But see, you all (SF) unlike our enemies, will fight anyone, any place, anywhere and any time. These new rules seem to take away some of that ability.

It's just my humble opinion that if that out government is going take away some of your tools and give the enemy safe havens then what's the point?

I guess I am showing my frustration.

[nmap]

Serious question: why bother staying? Why not just leave? That way, we wouldn't create any casualties at all.

[plato]

Sounds like a change from the "no fire zones" of the 60's

to the "no fire zone, unless you think you should fire".


I think we can deal with that with little impact on our current operations. Just a matter of timing.

[Sawman]

This ROE is like an enormous, 400ft-tall neon sign with a massive stack of Marshall amplifiers announcing at bone-crushing volume, "WE HAVE NO TRUE RESOLVE TO WIN!"

I'm speaking about our country, not our troops.

We continue to get away with so many of these inefficient and ineffective methods only because we are so big and powerful. Once we are torn down a little more from within, our half-hearted ROEs will cost us severely.

This is a disheartening development.

We have to press them hard to create any momentum. When we stall and dance around like this, our enemies ALWAYS capitalize on it and exploit the opportunity to recover.

Israel knows better. Their backs are to the sea, so they have nowhere else to run to. They do what works because they must. If only we would do the same.

Take the scenario from the movie, Munich. We should be conducting a world-wide, eradication campaign just like that, but on a much, much wider scale.

The hadj are recruiting quickly all over the world. They're multiplying like rats. Even South America is popping up with infested areas. SouthEast Asia is growing more saturated with them every day. Europe is being taken over. We've got them here in the U.S. planning in mosques and recruiting while benefiting from our ignorant and naive "tolerance." We've got North Korea and Iran rattling their sabers at us. Russia and China are sitting back, hoping for the worst for us, assisting our enemies where plausible deniability allows. Meanwhile, we're still half-assing it in Afghanistan, refusing to follow the root cause of all this into an ungoverned region of Northern Pakistan...

Is it just me, or are we miserably failing to conduct total war as if our country depends on it?

[7624U]

Originally Posted by Sawman

This ROE is like an enormous, 400ft-tall neon sign with a massive stack of Marshall amplifiers announcing at bone-crushing volume, "WE HAVE NO TRUE RESOLVE TO WIN!"

Is it just me, or are we miserably failing to conduct total war as if our country depends on it?

Didn't you hear Michael Jackson died.

[blue02hd]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

"However, absent a direct or imminent threat, we must pursue a tactical approach that prioritizes avoidance of civilian casualties as a fundamental aspect of mission success."

I don't see how this is any different from what we have already been trained to do.

I have to whole heartedly agree with Bas on this. I really do not see how this will effect the way teams are conducting business now. (Unless things are drastically changed since I was there, but I'll let ya know because I am headed back soon). Many of us who have served in OIF, OEF, or both have lost a friend or two to unobserved fires. I do not need to name names or dates. It happens, it sucks, we learn our lessons and move on. Friendly, enemy or civilian, smart bombs don't care. As an 18E I saw friendly air was just as much of a threat as were IED's, and when we could hear air above us while working I was immediately on the net and trading ID's to remove any doubt from a fast movers crew that was juggling any number of issues from the relative safety of their cockpit. Safe guards are established for a reason and should not be disreguarded lightly. It is not how we conduct business nor should we.

Should we have "called"? We do it all the time through soft knocks, etc. BUT, I am not one to ever second guess a call made from another soldier on the ground, so in this case I do not know, nor will I pretend to. Based on the fall out though, we can make our own decision on how effective those JDAMS were and learn whatever lesson we choose.

ZZ6, I can understand your frustration, but the game is not over by any means as you may suggest. UW is not a game won by counting bodies, especially if there are civilians in that count. Our mentors have stressed this over and over, and I expect nothing has changed. I mean honestly, what makes us different from those we are trying to defeat if at the end of the day we burn the house down and forget who we are there for, and why? If a person simply wants to kick doors and spray, maybe this isn't the site he needs to be following.

I personally don't want to be responsible for any harm to a noncombatant, regardless of his nationality, religion, or whatever.

From my arm chair thousands of miles away I see this as a self inflicted wound. I personally would like to see a policy that reinforces the safety procedures that HAS and DOES keep QP's and our G's safe when we are working because guess what? At night from the air, we can look just like the guys we are fighting.

[Sawman]

Originally Posted by blue02hd

I mean honestly, what makes us different from those we are trying to defeat if at the end of the day we burn the house down and forget who we are there for, and why? If a person simply wants to kick doors and spray, maybe this isn't the site he needs to be following.

I personally don't want to be responsible for any harm to a noncombatant, regardless of his nationality, religion, or whatever.

I personally would like to see a policy that reinforces the safety procedures that HAS and DOES keep QP's and our G's safe when we are working because guess what? At night from the air, we can look just like the guys we are fighting.

Sissy footing around never won any war. Ever. Forget who we're there for? Who do you think we're there for? We're there because we got kicked directly in the jimmy on our own soil. As for blue on blue, that's a matter of tactical air/ground coordination, not of theater ROEs that give the enemy unnecessary refuge. Nobody likes having an air asset drop ordnance on you when you're trying to get it done. That's universal. However, that needs to be cleaned up at the theater level with who's working which areas. Other than that, the pilots have to coordinate closely with the operators on the ground. We always briefed face-to-face with our air assets whenever possible, to prevent that issue. More can be done to eliminate friendly fire before we make a sweeping, theater-wide ROE that gives our enemy a serious break to exploit.

Only when we seriously press them without letting up, can we EVER hope to bring them to a breaking point. They know we'll eventually leave, just like every other invader has, because that place sucks. We're not there for the Afghan people. That's a fact. We're there to put an end to the threat from that region. As long as we tip toe around, they'll exploit the weaknesses in our strategy and maintain their resistance.

If you're looking for a solution that doesn't involve killing, I'd suggest a PR campaign that decreases their ability to recruit faster than we can kill them. We still haven't been able to break the code on that simple and glaring problem.

Of course, that's just my own personal observation, but I've seen enough to have strong feelings about it.