Petraeus to change Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. Civilian killing rules too restrictive.

[Karmadillo]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044911/general-david-petraeus-to-change-rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan/

Fox News, following up on a Telegraph article I wrote with my colleague Damien McElroy yesterday, is reporting that General David Petraeus will modify the “courageous restraint” Rules of Engagement (RoE) in Afghanistan drawn up by General Stanley McChrystal. Some troops believes that the existing RoE, designed to avoid civilian casualties, are too restrictive.

Here is what Damien and I reported:

Gen David Petraeus, the new US commander in Afghanistan, is to review the controversial doctrine of “courageous restraint”, according to Pentagon sources.

He is to re-examine the rules which some soldiers believe have prevented them from defending themselves.

“There will be no change in overall policy but all aspects of tactics and implementation will be looked at afresh,” a Pentagon official told The Daily Telegraph. “The issue of ‘courageous restraint’ is a controversial one on the ground and there may be ways it can be modified.”

more...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. So..all those who predicted this were right....How terribly sad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8633101&mesg_id=8633101

[jody]

5. Kerry "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Obama better have answers.

[dflprincess]

2. Winning their hearts and minds

:sarcasm:

[jody]

3. Great Obama's chosen one to win Obama's war wants to kill more innocent people. Is that Obama's

strategy to defeat al Qaeda and build a stable government in time to begin withdrawing troops in 2011.

Is Obama prepared to answer John Kerry's question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

[county worker]

4. I saw on the Maddow show parts of a new movie that is out.

It is actual footage of a unit in Afghanistan. In the movie one of the soldiers said that they really try hard not to kill civilians because that turns more of them against our troops.

I don't know what to say about a report from faux news.

One article says "review" and the headlines say "modify"

I think some here are too willing to believe the worst.

Speaking as a Vietnam Vet, killing civilians is not in your best interest if you can avoid it. We got some of our best information from civilians who volunteer it.

[Oregone]

6. But but, they aren't changing strategy!

Heh. Afghan War 3.0

[jody]

10. Obama “this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy” Same policy - new strategy.

Policy goals remain the same, defeat al Qaeda and build a government.

All that and begin withdrawing troops in 2011.

[Oregone]

12. Got you...I guess. I thought civilian casualties would be considered policy & strategy

One side is going to play with it all they can to comply to their notions, just as the other will

I just want to get the fucking thing over with. Last thing I want to see is a new rebranding to the public, followed by further entrenchment or misery.

[jody]

13. I wish everyone who claims to be a Democrat would keep in mind that people will keep dying until we

Dems force the Commander in Chief to withdraw our troops as rapidly as safety permits.

IMO McChrystal was a side show and I don't give a dam if he is fired or anybody else including elected officials if that's what's needed to bring our troops home.

[amborin]

16. the whole sitch is insane, but our troops were being sacrificed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8624573&mesg_id=8624573

[mike_c]

7. change we can believe in!

America's leadership is utterly awful, regardless of party. Every time someone points this out, others respond with "so you think Allen Grayson sucks" or "Dennis Kucinich is awful, huh?" Sure, there are individual voices of reason among the awfulness, but that doesn't change the simple truth that as a whole, America is blundering down the wrong roads in just about every way that's meaningful to most of us. Our leadership seems to have fallen onto generational hard times, because as a group, the whole lot of them are piss poor on their best days.

Dominated by wealth, corporate greed, power hunger, class warfare, and foreign imperialism, U.S. government goes from bad to worse every time it changes. The wealthy and greedy consolidate their power and the rest of us tremble in the dark and hope to keep our wage slavery intact.

What does any of this rant have to do with Petraeus in Afghanistan? Everything. America's continued presence in Afghanistan is utterly symptomatic of its floundering leadership and lack of coherent direction.

[burnsei sensei]

14. +1

The lack of direction may also be called an absurdity of direction.
We destroy to preserve, we make war to secure peace, we impoverish the poor and enrich the wealthy.
All of these are absurdities.

[katandmoon]

8. Obscene.

[kenny blankenship]

9. And so, Afghanistan will learn that we Americans are not all sunshine and smiles!

[Better Believe It]

11. Does this mean the "cookies and milk" doctrine is dead .... along with a lot more civilians?

[amborin]

15. i agree w/ this, though; our troops are in an impossible situation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8624573&mesg_id=8624573

[Better Believe It]

18. Bring them home .... all of them and do it now!

[amborin]

19. totally agree! but while they're there, being sacrificed, they should not have to be

slaughtered in the name of "hearts and minds"

if we were really pursuing "hearts and minds," we'd be following the "Three Cups of Tea" strategy

[tekisui]

17. Here is from the AP:

Petraeus to face soldier complaints over war rules

(snip)

Those rules, issued a year ago, helped make McChrystal a hero among many Afghans because they brought down the number of civilian casualties blamed on the NATO-led force. The rules were issued at a time of a rising tide of public anger over Afghan civilians killed by mistake in airstrikes and by heavy weapons such as cannons and mortars.

Down in the ranks, however, the rules are widely perceived as too restrictive, playing into the hands of the Taliban who appear keenly aware of the regulations. Some troops believe the rules cost American lives and force them to give up the advantage of overwhelming firepower to a foe who shoots and melts back into the civilian population.

At a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hinted about possible changes in the rules when asked about troops who feel "they're being asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back."

"Any new commander, Gen. Petraeus included, will go in, assess his command, and what it is going to take to achieve the mission," Mullen said, adding that the general "certainly has the flexibility to make changes that he thinks are necessary."

But Mullen also said that doesn't "portend changes" in the rules. He noted that Petraeus, who was McChrystal's boss, is "very aware of the tactical directive" and was involved in approving it as commander of the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_YB0jagAxQqRqNCfV6gN-s9UkFAD9GIEV3G0

[amborin]

20. good to see this change:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8624573&mesg_id=8624573


our troops are being used as guinea pigs


if we really want hearts and minds, then we should get the fuck out now, and if anything, follow the "three cups of tea" route

[ieoeja]

21. Petraeus says "review". FOX says "modify".

Given that Petraeus approved the "courageous restraint" policy in the first place, his review starts from a pro-restraint bias.