CSI Afghanistan
Remember when Attorney General Eric Holder proposed trying 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other foreign terrorists in New York federal court? The AG eventually backed down in the face of bipartisan opposition, but not before initially guaranteeing a conviction, as if the world's leading democratic republic were just another petty tyranny where the courts exist to deliver preordained results.
Despite this setback, it now appears as if Holder somehow found time amidst running guns to Mexican drug lords to export his vision of a more terrorist-friendly jurisprudence directly to the Afghan battlefield--perhaps one reason why President Obama's 2009 "war of necessity" is lately starting to resemble 1973 Vietnam.
Matt Bissonnette's No Easy Day has received a great deal of attention for its account of the death and capture of Osama Bin Laden. However, on this eve of a presidential debate focusing on foreign policy, I am struck by the former SEAL Team Six operator's account of the 2011 changes to the rules of engagement governing the conduct of our combat troops deployed to Afghanistan:
For years, we had been sneaking into compounds, catching fighters by surprise.
Not anymore.
On the last deployment, we were slapped with a new requirement to call them out. After surrounding a building, an interpreter had to get on a bullhorn and yell for the fighters to come out with their hands raised. It was similar to what police did in the United States. After the fighters came out, we cleared the house. If we found guns, we arrested the fighters, only to see them go free a few months later. Often we recaptured the same guy multiple times during a single deployment.
It felt like we were fighting the war with one hand and filling out paperwork with the other. When we brought back detainees, there was an additional two or three hours of paperwork. The first question to the detainee at the base was always, "Were you abused?" An affirmative answer meant an investigation and more paperwork.
And the enemy had figured out the rules.
Their tactics evolved as fast as ours. On my earlier deployments, they stood and fought. On more recent deployments, they started hiding their weapons, knowing we couldn't shoot them if they weren't armed. The fighters knew the rules of engagement and figured they'd just work their way through the system and be back to their village in a few days.
As of Friday, 2,012 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan and a further 17,790 have been wounded. Yet, under Obama administration policy, those defending our freedom abroad now have less discretion in engaging illegal enemy combatants in Jalalabad than federal agents executing no-knock warrants in Utah.
We now authorize domestic police to stage some 70-80,000 military-style no-knock raids each year against criminal suspects, while soldiers in a foreign war-zone must first announce themselves to Taliban fighters. How in the world did common sense become reversed?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Once you understand that winning is not the goal, common sense no longer appears reversed. Obama's goal was and is to keep a lid on Afghanistan until reelected. He knew he couldn't get reelected if he simply walked away. But he doesn't think winning is useful to his foreign policy goals. So he's just holding on until packing up in 2014. He buried the war, in effect, and it has worked perfectly for him. The war goes on and young men die week-in, week-out. But it's almost completely unremarked upon despite an extremely close Presidential election. Who would have thought this possible in 2008?
This is what having the media in your hip pocket is all about . . . you get to decide what’s important, instead of that being imposed upon you by others. It has become banal to say it, but if it were still a Republican war Afghanistan would consume at huge portion of tonight’s Presidential debate on foreign policy. Instead, we will hear more about Russia (and way more about Iran) then we will about a war we’re actually fighting and in which brave Americans are actually dying.
Aug '10
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Mitt Romney needs to lead with the repeal of these horrible Rules of Engagement in tomorrow's debate. He'll make a critical point that needs to be raised to the public's attention, and he'll catch the President off guard without a memorized soundbite.
May '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Marine battalions now have police officers attached to help them gather evidence and evaluate "crime" scenes.
Aug '12
Re: CSI Afghanistan
If US objectives in Afghanistan include 'winning hearts and minds' then you can't have soldiers giving in to their baser instincts and doing My Lais, or Abu Ghraibs or getting caught urinating on corpses etc. The only way to stop these things happening, in the bitter furious atmosphere of a vicious guerilla war, is to police the soldiers. Is there a better way of realistically stopping these from happening? Or is winning hearts and minds a completely unrealistic goal anyway?
Edited on October 22, 2012 at 1:01pmSep '10
Re: CSI Afghanistan
This unfortunately is not only with Obama. GWB, Mr Compassionate himself, got a lot of our military killed unnecessarily also. The real tragedy however is the fact that both of these bozos could play their games and have not a single senior military officer resign in protest. Bush proved he was good at staring wars, but as he did during Vietnam, not vary good a fighting them. He was replaced by someone who was worse and they were both aided by senior military that are more politician than warriors.
May '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
It's a completely unrealistic goal. We conquered the region (it is not a nation) and installed a religious government, did not export the Bill of Rights and we allow them to tell us what to do. It's madness. They are illiterate barbarians . . . No, that's too generous. They are ignorant savages, only out of the stone ages because they have found a way to get somewhat modern weapons. They have no economy and nothing worth taking. We should punish more and coddle less.
Jul '10
Re: CSI Afghanistan
We apparently stopped fighting wars back when we changed the department name from War Department to Department of Defense. Since then we have been engaged in a series of "police actions" which have generally ended badly for us, usually because of us.
The communists in NK assaulted across the country to capture it, Uncle Joe thinking we were too tired to continue to fight. We almost were. JFK launched a series of "advisor" actions in RVN to stave off the capture of THAT remnant, and after the largest Marine Corps loss of life in its history we negotiated a "peace" the other side had absolutely no intention of keeping - and then refused to fund our "friends" (who probably could have staved off the attacks) - leading to yet another communist killing field. Now we have the Mideast, where we have chosen to "pacify" the region and institute "democracy" - this in the face of islaam, which is totally anti-freedom.
When you look back over this record, it is amazing that we have actually won anything - we haven't been fighting to win!
Jul '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
One of my buddies fought in SOG in Vietnam. These badass dudes dropped in behind enemy lines with a few Montagnards (indigenous personnel) and were supposed to do mostly recon. Policy had their positions reported to ARVN leadership among whom was a traitor who betrayed their locations frequently ending in costly firefights. They incurred 50% casualties because of this PC policy. I see no change in our stupidity. PC behavior is the real enemy, we have not learned it seems nor apparently lost enough young men to alter this idiocy.
Jul '10
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Docjay - read Black April. A fine, detailed expose of our duplicity.
Apr '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
There are three lines that I would love to hear Romney utter tonight:1. "It's nice that you've committed yourself to tracking down the murderers of Christopher Stevens, Mr. President. My administrator will focus on preventing terrorist acts, not investigating them."2. "There's no trick to ending a war; anyone can cut and run. The trick is WINNING a war, and protecting victories that are already won."3. "Bin Laden was tracked down by the tireless work of unsung heroes in the intelligence community. Regarding that system, Mr. President: you didn't build it."
May '12
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Zafar: If US objectives in Afghanistan include 'winning hearts and minds' then you can't have soldiers giving in to their baser instincts and doing My Lais, or Abu Ghraibs or getting caught urinating on corpses etc. The only way to stop these things happening, in the bitter furious atmosphere of a vicious guerilla war, is to police the soldiers. Is there a better way of realistically stopping these from happening? Or is winning hearts and minds a completely unrealistic goal anyway? · 4 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
Zafar, you've managed to conflate many unrelated and unassociated events, concepts and clichés into a few sentences--well done.
Jul '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Yes.
Apr '11
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Zafar: If US objectives in Afghanistan include 'winning hearts and minds' then you can't have soldiers giving in to their baser instincts and doing My Lais, or Abu Ghraibs or getting caught urinating on corpses etc. The only way to stop these things happening, in the bitter furious atmosphere of a vicious guerilla war, is to police the soldiers. Is there a better way of realistically stopping these from happening? Or is winning hearts and minds a completely unrealistic goal anyway? · 4 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
Well, no. The only way to actually "win hearts and minds" is to pound the enemy and keep pounding them until the civilians conclude that supporting the US is the only way to get peace & stability back. (This is called "defeating" the enemy). Then if we are magnanimous in victory, Afghanistan will become Poland- or Japan-level in its loyalty to the US.
Pretend-fighting just makes the civilians believe that the way to restore stability is to support the Taliban. (This is called "being defeated by" the enemy).
Aug '12
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Skyler
[It's a completely unrealistic goal.]
Then why is the US in Afghanistan?
Why not just support a local strong man and completely ignore their unjust internal policies so long as they deliver the external environment that you want (and are paying for)?
Regards
Edited on October 23, 2012 at 10:04amAug '12
Re: CSI Afghanistan
JimGoneWild
[Zafar, you've managed to conflate many unrelated and unassociated events, concepts and clichés into a few sentences--well done.]
Soldiers did kill civilians inMy Lai. They did abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib. They did urinate on the corpses of their enemies. (We know about the last two because they photographed themselves doing it.)
Soldiers’ actions are policed because some of them have behaved awfully in the past, and there is a perceived cost to national security from their actions. I don’t see how that is clichéd or unrelated to the questions:
Can they achieve their mission in these situations without some of them trying to commit atrocities?
Can they be policed to stop atrocities without it fatally compromising their ability to achieve their mission?
Regards
Aug '12
Re: CSI Afghanistan
Jonathan Cast
[The only way to actually "win hearts and minds" is to pound the enemy and keep pounding them until the civilians conclude that supporting theUSis the only way to get peace & stability back. (This is called "defeating" the enemy). Then if we are magnanimous in victory,Afghanistanwill become Poland- or Japan-level in its loyalty to theUS.]
Arguable – but I’m not sure that theUS administration and people are willing to pay the price (military, economic or political) for that.
[Pretend-fighting just makes the civilians believe that the way to restore stability is to support the Taliban.]
That’s actually what’s happened in the past. Why are they foolish to believe this? They might be unrealistic if they doubted it.
Regards