Protect Assets Strategy

Is Afghanistan Becoming a Vast My Lai Situation?
And are our servicemen being placed in the position of Lt. Calley?

Now that the Taliban know that US trrops are prohibited from firing upon a building that contains civilians, will they ever fire any shot again from any position that does not contain civilians.

Will US trrops be faced with a choice between being non-responsive ducks in a shooting gallery or violating General Stanley McCrystal’s order that no shot can be fired at any position that contains civilians.

All offensive enemy positions will contain civilians. We might as well go home. If we can’t shoot back, then the only function the US troops are serving is being moving targets for target practice.

The enemy is shameless — they are cockroaches — they have the same respect for the law of armed conflict that a cockroach would have, or a shark, or a bug-eyed monster.

Their women and children mean nothing to them except that they are now useful as human shields.

OK Dolphin314etc we get the fact that you don’t like the current setup — so how should the war be done?

A few revisions:

(1) The US mission in Afghanistan cannot possibly be to protect the civilian population — that is a completely crazy idea which leads directly to the My Lai/Lt. Calley situation we are now in.

(2) The only legitimate mission in the vast badlands of Afghanistan is to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps and to smash Taliban and Al Qada safehouses — just training camps and safehouses.

(3) This mission can best be done by Predators. So most of the groundforces can just come home.

(4) We have no role to play clearing territory, holding territory, building hospitals and schools, winning the hearts and minds of the people, or protecting Karzai’s constituents. Those activities are not related in any meaningful way to the national security of USA if we can smash all training camps and all safehouses by other means (Predators).

(5) The manpower required to do the revised mission: (1) 5000 at Bahgram to re-fuel and re-arm Predators (2) 15,000 in the fleet at sea to fly recon and to do support for Delta Force and Baghram forces and (3) 50,000 at NSA, NRO, and Cheyenne Colorado — Battle Mountain to do intelligence analysis and target identification work 24/7/365 in real-time, and (4) 10,000 in the Space Command to keep our Keyhole assets in the most productive positions for target ID support in real time.

Now is the time when twitty ones start with their abusive comments — Why does this guy think he knows better than our leaders? We just follow orders here — we don’t think about policy or strategy or tactics — we just do what we’re told — who does this guy think he is — why doesn’t he take his comments to the Politics section — anything other than just following orders is pure politics — so I’m gonna get 3 or 4 abusive answers like that — it can’t be helped. My choice is to go forward anyway — there are people who are not stupid about this subject, Biden is one, George Will is one, Barry MacCaffrey is one. I’m trying to reach the non-stupid people. Hopefully my title question will provide a bit of narrow-casting, but clowns abound, so one just has to wade through them, pay them no mind.

Not really,no.

First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as "Criminals", so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action.

The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian "collateral damage" is unavoidable in war.
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, "Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly." In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban "Criminals".

It’s also worth noting that McCrystal’s order is a foolish reaction anyway – the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops – they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, "bats 1000". Everyone misses sometimes.

Richard