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!
