what that is ****** insane. you ask me someone should be out of a job or court marshaled

This happens every day in Afghanistan.

Troops will watch Al Qaeda members from predators, planting bombs in the road. By the time clearance is given to apprehend or eliminate the bad guy, he is already long gone.

Then someone has to go disarm the bomb.

The phoney charade has gone on loong enough....time to bring our sons and daughters home where they belong...
We have enough trouble of our own here to deal with.....

Originally posted by watchitburn
This happens every day in Afghanistan.

Troops will watch Al Qaeda members from predators, planting bombs in the road. By the time clearance is given to apprehend or eliminate the bad guy, he is already long gone.

Then someone has to go disarm the bomb.

Yep, this sounds exactly like the ROE everytime me or anyone I know went over there "dont shoot unless fired upon." and even if you were getting shot at it was hard to get permission.

I don't blame them. How would you like it some criminals came into your neighborhood and started shooting? The Oppressive American forces have no evidence that Afghanistan was responsible for 9.11

This kind of crap is what makes me hate management types.

What kind of moron chooses not waking up people over getting rid of the creeps that are trying to blow up everyone?

Don't answer that.

Another Vietnam.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I don't blame them. How would you like it some criminals came into your neighborhood and started shooting? The Oppressive American forces have no evidence that Afghanistan was responsible for 9.11

That (appropriate descriptive escapes me) comment aside for the moment, the issue at hand here is what the Rules of Engagement ought to be during wartime.

It is absolutely ludicrous to insist that soldiers:

(a) Can't fire on an enemy combatant until he has in fact discharged his weapon in the direction of the soldier
(b) Assuming the initial enemy volley misses its intended target, the soldier (in the heat of battle) must still contact a superior somewhere to secure permission to defend himself
(c) Witnessing a combatant planting an explosive device (for the express purpose of later killing friendly forces) must not fire, must ask permission to fire, must obey the order to let the combatant complete his act.

Sure (maybe) later they will send a crew out to disable the device (still putting lives at risk to do so). But by not killing the insurgent, they may not find the next five bombs he plants while not being witnessed.

The reason our forces are going home with their tails between their legs is not because the Afghans are some kind of fearsome, invincible warriors (though we will certainly add to that myth)...it because our political leadership lacks the fortitude to finish what it starts in these conflicts.

The Taliban are a pack of murderous Islamic ghouls who need to be wiped from the face of the Earth. Their time as the Government of Afghanistan was nothing short of a reign of terror - on their own citizens. Once they were forced over the border into Pakistan, they began murdering and maiming the innocent citizens of that country.

Half measures won't get it done with these psychos. Nil measures (like these ROE) are downright asinine.

Courageous restraint is indeed policy. However as usual the Daily Mail has completely the wrong side of the stick.

The policy is designed to avoid civillian casualties as far as reasonably practical. It does not mean that we cannot open fire if fired upon - the right to self defence is protected under all relevant Joint Service Publications (JSPs). What it DOES mean is that we cannot just go mental and unload in the general direction of a possible enemy position. We must first possitively identify (PID) the threat.

If you think about it it makes perfect sense. If you are patrolling through an area occupied by civillians, would it be right to be blase with how you employ your fire power? What does it do to the local support if you kill innocent civillians you are supposed to be protecting? We are not there to kill the Taliban, we are there to protect the population. Does it therefore make sense to put the population at increased risk, killing a few of them, just to take out a couple of Terrys?

We are only allowed to engage the enemy under certain ROEs. I will not go into them in detail as they are restricted, but the general day-to-day concept is of self defence and proportionality. Any offensive actions are authorised under different ROEs, the use of which have to be authorised by a higher level. Stating that we can't open fire if attacked is a gross misinterperetation of the ROE. However we do have to be aware of the locals safety. I would personally feel unable to forgive myself if I killed a local kid while trying to defend myself.

Unfortunately shooting individuals while planting bombs is not allowed most of the time as the bomber poses no immediate threat to the individual. This is as absurd to me as it is to you, but these are the rules. The rules have nothing to do with "waking up the locals" or any other such crap. They are to do with the protection of human life.

We are professional soldiers and we need to act as such. Taking risks is in the job description. There is nothing more natural than trying to defend yourself. The difference is we have to be professional in our actions. We have the safety of a population to consider as well as our own. It's what seperates us from the Taliban.

By the way, for those of you who don't know I'm a British Army Senior NCO, and have recently finished my 3rd operational tour of Afghanistan in the area the soldiers in the article were based.