At Large
An Enlisted Man’s Point of View
Avoiding civilian casualties where possible is an integral element of American war fighting.
As anyone who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces knows, avoiding civilian casualties where possible is an integral element of American war fighting. These “rules of engagement” go all the way back to General Washington’s Continental Army. There was a time in the beginning of the Korean War when it was not uncommon among basic training cadre to remind new recruits that “No one shoots at somethin’ in a pagoda, no matter what’s goin’ on — unless, of course, you get an order from some officer above the rank of a butter bar [2nd Lieutenant].”
With all due respect to “second looey’s” of the “brown shoe” army of the early fifties, neither they nor the enlisted ranks were quite sure what to make of those ornate oriental buildings that were supposed to be treated as if they were churches — and thus sacrosanct in American eyes. The communist North Koreans, on the other hand, viewed pagodas as very useful sniper sites, field aid stations, and often excellent booby-trapped hospitality suites — sort of exploding Motel 6’s. They also hid among the streams of refugees as they moved south. The collateral casualties didn’t bother them; the Americans could always be blamed.
It seems that the U.S, military is once again being urged to avoid civilian casualties. This time Afghanistan is the new theater of operations where American soldiers, Marines, and airmen are supposed to kill the enemy, but do it as decorously as possible to avoid civilians becoming collateral damage.
A hard-charging Ranger special operations officer, Lt. General Stanley McChrystal, was purposely named to be commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR). He had express orders to push forward vigorously against the Taliban. Virtually immediately after this hand-picked warrior assumed command, he received new instructions from the White House via the Pentagon to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. If a firefight appears to be expanding so as to endanger “resident non-combatants,” the engagement must be broken off. Air attacks must be limited to targets of strictly confirmed hostile character, with no civilian co-mingling.
Once again, as in the Korean War and in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as other conflicts, U.S. forces have received rules of engagement aimed at securing maximum avoidance of political backlash in a war with an enemy to whom the use of the civilian population as protective cover is an accepted part of his fighting tactics.
Veterans of Afghan affairs knowledgeable of the numerous power centers of local tribal politics are near unanimous in recognizing that the Taliban will make sure there are civilian casualties whether or not the American or other ISAF units actually are responsible. The fact is that the Taliban leadership contains many ranking personalities who are quite well acquainted with the politics of the developed world — and they know how to exploit the weaknesses. Civilian casualties are high on that list.
From the Afghan side both President Hamid Karzai and his presidential rival, Abdullah Abdullah, urge a decentralization of governing authority. And both candidates place special emphasis on the need to protect against civilian casualties while moving ahead firmly against the Taliban. This election rhetoric is what the Obama Administration is reacting to. In Afghani terms it’s hard to explain to the unsophisticated American mind that civilian deaths are more important before an election than afterward.
Secretary of Defense Gates has mistaken what is a political aim for a military strategy. Of course civilian dead and wounded play into the hands of the Taliban. But avoiding these casualties is nearly impossible if the enemy essentially and effectively uses innocent tribes people as shields. This is the kind of war it is. Not recognizing this fact is tantamount to ignoring the enemy’s strength.
Granting a very few atypical incidents, avoiding civilian casualties is an integral element of all American war fighting. No special rules of engagement need to be issued. Not recognizing this fact ignores and insults the basic character of the American fighting man and woman. It might be a good idea for President Obama and his civilian advisors to spend a few weeks with the Army and Marines to get some idea of what really motivates the U.S. military. Apparently General Jim Jones, USMC Ret., the national security advisor, has forgotten what he once knew.
Better yet, ask former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey: He lost his right leg below the knee in the process of an action in Vietnam that won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. On a previous mission to destroy a VC headquarters at Thanh Phong, he led a SEAL team that inadvertently killed a substantial number of women and children. That’s war, Mr. President, and you better damn well get used to it!
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/02/an-enlisted-mans-point-of-view
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 7.2.09 @ 7:28AM
With the latest guidelines, Afghanistan could very easily, like Vietnam, become a war we're not allowed to win. Of course, all the blame will go on Bush.
Eric Damon| 7.2.09 @ 7:53AM
Rush Limbaugh once described the basic purpose of the military as "to break things and kill people"...and that is what the civilian leadership is forgetting. Civilian casualties are always regrettable, but in an asymetrical war like this civilian casualties are going to occur, especially with an enemy that is shielded by the populace and hides among them. Constantly harping on our troops about the need to avoid civilian casualties in this manner leaves the impression that the leadership sees the soldiers as indiscriminate in their actions, and essentially hamstrings them in the field. In a firefight the soldiers have to be able to react to what is going on around them, they do not have the luxury of determining who is Taliban and who's not. They have to react instinctively, but these guidelines disallow that which makes our troops vulnerable to Taliban attacks from among the Afghani populace. The only way to win out in this conflict is to allow our soldiers to be soldiers, not politicians with guns. They are trained to "break things and kill people", so identify the enemy, give them a military goal to reach, and get the hell out of their way so they can get the job done!
Pingback| 7.2.09 @ 8:04AM
Why the Bill of Rights and other news for Thursday. | FortPatriot.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan| 7.2.09 @ 9:47AM
The other problem is the lack of our side to be able to effectively promote the idea that the deaths of civilians are on the heads of combatants who hide in the general population. It's a war crime, and should be treated as such.
Ned | 7.2.09 @ 10:10AM
It was either General Sherman or Grant, I forget which one for sure, was once asked how he kept his desertion rates down when President Lincoln commuted every sentence of death for that offence that made it to his desk? The reply was, "I shoot em first."
Perhaps Lt. General Stanley McChrystal needs take advantage of this administration’s naïveté in the fighting of wars and do the same thing in this instance.
S in Severn| 7.2.09 @ 11:11AM
Our AEG's unofficial motto was "killing those that deserve to be killed." I know of one guy that was investigated for the 'killing' of an irregular" that was holding a child as a human shield. The 'head-shot' worked and one less to worry about later. Oh the girl, was very much alive and unharmed.
One of the most UNDER REPORTED news story is how the Hirabahist's (use the Arabic term for it, not abuse the term Jihad) use civilians as human shields. They locate their operations in places of worship (mosques) and hospitals, as well as schools (with children as hostages) and homes and communities of their families.
Their world view "death is better than life." How can you fight that? They believe that if they die, and at the same time kill an "infidel" they will go to paradise. How do you stop all of them?
Our weak, yellow streaked, banana spine elected leadership WILL get more people killed. The weak, riderless horse is a prize. The 'strongman' is gone.
WilliamInWien| 7.2.09 @ 12:03PM
The goal of WAR is VICTORY. This truth has been forgotten since the end of WWII. As a result, we have "police actions", "peace keeping" and "humanitarian interventions". We have ROE that place US forces at a disadvantage for political reasons. We expect our warriors to be able to discern the innocent from the bad in a heartbeat. In law enforcement, a police officer must identify himself and give the criminal a chance to surrender before using deadly force. In many cases, this places the officer at a disadvantage should the criminal decide to shoot at the officer. Are we asking our military to be police officers or are we expecting them to WIN?
Tony in Central PA| 7.2.09 @ 12:19PM
I have heard stories from Iraq about insurgents throwing kids under the wheels of US convoys as they pass through towns in an effort to make them stop. Apparently, our media doesn't think this qualifies as news.
Bram| 7.2.09 @ 12:25PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to define "victory" in Afganistan.
Highly restrictive ROE's only help our enemies. They ROE's are also insulting to our troops, who, by assumption, must be too stupid to make decisions on the ground.
Crusader| 7.2.09 @ 1:16PM
"As anyone who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces knows, avoiding civilian casualties where possible is an integral element of American war fighting."
Unless you are Abe Lincoln in the War of Northern Aggression, then it's encouraged.
Bram| 7.2.09 @ 1:22PM
We sure didn't try to avoid German or Japanese civilian casualties during WWII.
Crusader| 7.2.09 @ 1:24PM
"I'm still waiting for somebody to define "victory" in Afganistan."
Don't hold your breath. Well, there won't be a victory in the classic, pre-effeminate USA sense. I mean back when "victory" meant you destroyed your enemy and his will to fight. Now before we send troops to the ME we prep them with "Islam Sensitivity Training" and "Afghani Cultural Awareness." We expect them to determine who's a bad guy and who's a good guy in a split second where there are no discernable differences between the two. If he doesn't hesitate and get himself killed we then prosecute him for killing a non-combatant. If he looks at a mosque wrong we prosecute him.
There can be no "victory" in the ME until we 1) accurately define the enemy and 2) take the gloves off. Since we want to do neither American troops will continue to die in vain in Iraq and Afghanistan and (if the neocons get their way) Iran for years and years and years and years.
jeffW| 7.2.09 @ 2:10PM
Crusader,
With statements like this.
"As anyone who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces knows, avoiding civilian casualties where possible is an integral element of American war fighting."
Unless you are Abe Lincoln in the War of Northern Aggression, then it's encouraged. "
You show your shallow thinking. In other words your a fine example of a Troll.
Ned| 7.2.09 @ 3:04PM
Crusader, Let me guess. You’re thinking about General Sherman. I believe his goal in the march to the sea, was to destroy infrastructure and the morale of the South in the War of Rebellion. Neither he, nor President Lincoln advocated or sought the death of civilians.
Victory in Afghanistan has, is, and will be, not allowing scumbag terrorists unhindered freedom to maintain a base of operations to wage whatever cowardly deed they happen to be scheming up. Oh and in the process killing as many of the bad guys as we possibly can. Could go on for decades.
Crusader| 7.3.09 @ 10:45AM
jeffW, so I am a troll huh? Typical repub zombie response. Just like libtards you guys are not immune to the ol' ad hominems when you get your panties twisted. Try a new manpon jeff and you should be feeling a little better.
Ned, try reading a true account of the history of the War of Northern Aggression instead of what you were told in publik skrewl. You might learn something. As far as your talk of "scumbag terorists" goes, you make me laugh. Typical repub zombie pom-pom waver. Forever willing to talk tough as long as someone else goes and does the dying. The problem, Ned, is for every "scumbag terrorist" that we kill there are about 10000 in caves and mosques and kindergartens over there. This is not a war on terrorism any more than WWII was a war on the blitzkrieg. You callous remark about the war going on for decades is scary. The way we are handling this war is like if your house was overrun with cockroaches and you are trying to kill them by stepping on the one at a time (but first you have to read them their miranda rights).
JeffW| 7.3.09 @ 11:35AM
Crusader,
Yes, I believe your a troll until you give us what you think should be done instead of playing armchair quarterback. If you dislike the approach being taken, fine. Give us your thoughts on what should be done instead of just pointing out what you think is wrong.
And please, Manpon? If your going to insult me try using something out of the english dictionary and not a urban one.
If this is not a war on terrorism what would you say it is for? Your right as far as just killing terrorist will not solve the problem. You have to change the attitudes there as well. Kind of hard to do that though with terrorist using brute force to control the population isn't it? Kill the terrorist group, protect the civilians as much as possible, remove the terrorist money source (opium fields) and help the populace in anyway possible. Just my 2 cents though. Lets hear yours.
Havoc| 7.3.09 @ 12:04PM
The photograph provided for this article shows British troops (not Americans) in action, you dingbats.
Henry Hitchcock| 7.3.09 @ 1:52PM
Ned, you need to take a look at Sherman's burning of South Carolina and contrast that with his campaigns in Georgia and North Carolina. Havoc, good call!
Richard Baker| 7.3.09 @ 7:19PM
Unfortunately, the Taliban are cowards who will save themselves everytime even if they have to hide behind every Afghan civilian. So much for "Warriors of God". Sadly, the only way these members of the "Religion of Peace" will be defeated is to kill them all. They chose their Rules of Engagement and so be it. The physical coward in the White House is undeserving of the devotion of those in uniform, even though they will obey the Commander-in-Chief. I felt this way when serving under Carter.
Crusader| 7.4.09 @ 8:51AM
jeffW, your gameplan for the war on man-made disasters or overseas contingency or whatever it is we're calling it now sounds like talking points out from the RNC. Tell me jeff, have you served in Afghanistan? Been there? Interacted with those illiterate goat-farming pedophiles? Read the koran? Hadiths? Sira? What do you know of mohammed's life? Then shut the eff up.
Richard Baker is correct.
Know islam, no peace. No islam, know peace.
On 9/11 3000 Americans were killed. I owuld have killed 1,000 muslims for every American. Then, if there were another terrorist attack, 10,000 for every one American, and so on and so on. Eventually the semi-human satan-worshiping goons would either get the point or all be killed.
Marc Jeric| 7.5.09 @ 4:49AM
One hears a lot of wailing about "war crimes" when "innocent civilians" are killed in pursuit of terrorists. I am reminded of the case of Ammerschwier, a medieval town in Alsace, in the last year of WWII: its mayor greeted the American troup with a white flag, and led by its lieutenant marching in front of their tank the troup entered the town. A Nazi sniper killed the lieutenant; the troup retreated and called the bombers in. The charming town was flattened (later it was rebuilt by US money using the exact building materials, i.e, hand-carved stone masonry, macadam, bricks, and slate roofs). After this incident the Germans themselves made sure that no Nazi snipers were hiding after their towns surrendered.
The war did not stop in order to resupply the nazis with food, fuel, and medicines - like it happened with Hamas terrorists in Gaza. So, when the Sunni terrorists leave their Sunni neighborhood to kill Shia civilians, and then retreat back into those Sunni neighborhoods (or vice versa), what should be done is this: such neighborhoods should be bombed to dust. Only then will the population of those neighborhoods understand that it is dangerous to harbor terrorists.
Only the Muslims themselves can stop terrorists when they finaly are made to understand how dangerous it is to harbor terrorists. Our phony "rules of engagement" are made for our eventual defeat in this new 100-year war of the civilization against those medieval barbarians.
These new "rules of engagement" issued by Abu Hussein from Kenya promise a defeat in Afghanistan.
Bob| 7.5.09 @ 1:09PM
In Vietnam, I was part of a team that agonized over these types of decisions. There is no right answer, there is always a trade-off. The Psyops people would tell us that civilian casualties hurt their ability to get locals on our side so that we could get better intelligence and the Ops people would tell us they could not avoid casualties and still achieve their objective. Each case is different and must be treated as such. I have a high regard for the military to make such decisions.
No one has mentioned the atomic bombs in Japan. There were probably more innocent lives taken there than anyplace else. I believe that was justified in ending the war and, in the end, saved lives.
I don't think we can ever win in Afghanistan because it is a feudal country. We will never defeat the Taliban. Our goal currently is correct -- to get Al Qaeda to be non-effective. Other than that, nation building will not work.
Roy| 7.5.09 @ 3:27PM
Crusader:
Yours pretty much sounds like it is coming from DNC dupes/ "neocon" haters, but I repeat myself.
It certainly needs no particular knowledge of Muslims to recommend that plan, as it would work equally "well" no matter who we were attacked by. And no, those who disagree with you will not "shut the eff up".
JimE| 7.5.09 @ 6:35PM
In islam innocent civilians are beheaded.
CKY| 7.27.09 @ 12:52PM
As a enlisted veteran who's had his share of chai, I believe I can offer my two cents:
War is ugly, terrible, etc. Save it for the movies and historical anthologies. As much as human conflict leaches out participants' humanity, it is commendable what GEN McChrystal has done to curb criticism of American military efforts in Afghanistan. I'm not sure any of you people on this website not previously deployed in uniform understand how Balkanized/Tribal the Pashtu/Tajik/Uzbek/etc. mindset is. Any slight, however small, deserves an equal and opposite reaction- so imagine if a 500-lb. U.S. bomb accidentally falls on your brother's house, killing everyone? Revenge isn't even an chioce- it is the only option. Combine that with the inter-tribal rivalries and petty criminality that goes back thousands of years, and you got a major perception problem on your hands. This is not the classic force-on-force "war" hawks so longingly write about. No. It's soft, asymmetrical, and difficult. It's also time-consuming and fraught with complex subtleties they don't teach at "swiftly close with and destory the enemy" infantry school. Which is why the new strategy is such a refreshing and correct decision.
Some points about the civilian non-aggression directive: When you say orders came down from the White House and the SecDef's office, of course they do. What do you think "civilian oversight and control" means? Bush's war plans and Rumsfield's snowflakes are clear evidence of the politics of warmaking, the Obama administration is no different.
Also, the new commander is a warrior's warrior, and any insinuation that he is not incredibly qualified for the job is dead wrong. This is a guy who lead Special Operations for the longest a guy has ever held it; this is a guy who personally green-lit and verified Al-Zarqawi's death; this is a guy who knows COIN and how to effect the most impact with the smallest footprint. In short, this is not a fellow who will kowtow to every political whim that comes his way- his strategy (and from all accounts, it is HIS strategy) may be informed by other parties, including the WH, but ultimately it's his reputation on the line. He certainly won't let that be ruined without a fight.
So that's my piece. Mao said insurgents swim with the fish in the sea. It is a good idea, perhaps, to hunt with a spear than a net, if you want to avoid collateral damage en route to a rewarding catch.
uniform | 8.30.09 @ 8:24AM
urcode professionaluniformcompany
webdesign | 8.30.09 @ 8:25AM
webdesign company softwarewebdesign
dsf| 12.4.09 @ 1:55AM
MKV Converter,
MKV to AVI
mnbvm| 1.19.10 @ 2:41AM
Convert to MKV is a powerful MKV video converter and MKV file converter, that can help you convert videos to MKV files with fast speed and excellent output quality.
Convert MKV to DVD as well as all the other popular formats are supported; batch and multithreading convert MKV to DVD and make the most of your multi-core processor power; create MKV to DVD with menu templates, split your movies into chapters and watch them on your home DVD player afterwards;
convert MKV to DVD by deleting unwanted parts, split and join video files and much more...
制服 | 7.21.10 @ 11:41PM
Can only say that the expense of human rights or 制服 for a total of more than