Analyst's note: Absolutely must read. This is an informed and reasoned discussion on Rules of Engagement (ROE) in a counter insurgency operation which is in and of itself unjustified in Afghanistan. To make matters even worse, the ROE employed there "[...] gives control of the battlespace to the Taliban." Using what he calls "reasoned evidence," the author points out why he believes that the ROE being employed is responsible for most, if not all U.S. and NATO deaths and casualties.
The article outlines what it takes to win. After much thought and consideration the author, a retired U.S. Marine warrior, makes it clear why he believes that as a result of political correctness and inept leadership starting at the national level down to the theater level, we are NOT fighting to win, rather to "protect Afghan civilians at all cost." In so doing, we are protecting the Taliban thugs who themselves are civilians.
A review of military history supports the fact that counter insurgency, or COIN, is especially unsuited for winning wars despite what you may hear from today's some general officers still trying to prove theories they developed in earlier staff billets. The author, John Bernard is a retired U.S. Marine Corps First Sergeant, makes it perfectly clear when he points out that, "The hard truth is that America's sons and daughters will continue to pay the ultimate price for high-minded thinkers, politicians and inept leadership until the true 'King' of the country, the Citizens decide they have had enough." to add insult to further injury and death, "And that is unlikely to happen until Islam is once again successful in attacking our homeland."
[....] The original Commander's Intent was to go into Afghanistan and destroy/scatter/remove Al Qaida from Afghanistan and to hold those who aided them accountable for their actions, ie the Taliban. That mission took a dramatic turn in 2009 when we chose to seek the good graces of the Afghan people instead of seeking justice for the assault on our land by Islamic hordes.
{...] the new 'goal' was to protect Afghan civilians at all cost. It included a vigorous plan to 're-build' Afghanistan as a nation from the very foundations of its government. It instituted a theater-wide, controversial doctrine known as Counter Insurgency which has a historical record of failure in all except one engagement and fielded an ROE (rules of engagement) that all but eliminate the use of Air Support and Field Artillery Support for US and NATO forces except in the 'safest' possible applications (no civilians around...problematic when you consider the Taliban are civilians
CentCom and ISAF made a deliberate decision, under the leadership of this sitting President, to not win. It even went as far as to redefine the war effort and to expunge words like 'win', 'success', 'terrorism' and 'Islamic Extremists' from the lexicon. It further determined that the new 'goal' was to protect Afghan civilians at all cost. It included a vigorous plan to 're-build' Afghanistan as a nation from the very foundations of its government. It instituted a theater-wide, controversial doctrine known as Counter Insurgency which has a historical record of failure in all except one engagement and fielded an ROE (rules of engagement) that all but eliminate the use of Air Support and Field Artillery Support for US and NATO forces except in the 'safest' possible applications (no civilians around...problematic when you consider the Taliban are civilians).
