Directions
- If possible, print the article before reading.
- As you read, circle or underline the names of people, organizations and important facts.
- Use your own words to answer the questions in complete sentences.
Jump to...
(by Sara A. Carter, WashingtonExaminer.com) KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN – To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: The restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.
“If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.
Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. “We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can’t see them,” Brooks added, with disgust.
In June, Gen. David Petraeus, who took command here [to replace] Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Congress that he was weighing a major change with rules for engaging enemy fighters in Afghanistan. That has not yet happened, troops say. Soldiers and Marines continue to be held back by what they believe to be strict rules imposed by the government of President Hamid Karzai designed with one objective: limit Afghan civilian casualties.
“I don’t think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we’re going through,” said Spc. Matthew “Silver” Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. “I’m sick of people trying to cover up what’s really going on over here. They won’t let us do our job. I don’t care if they try to kick me out for what I’m saying — war is war and this is no war. I don’t know what this is.”
To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.
“If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless,” said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.
“Everyone dies for their own reasons but it’s sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we’re not going to see through.”
Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.
From the front lines, the U.S. backing of the Karzai government, widely seen as riddled with corruption by the Afghans living in local villages, has given the Taliban a position of power in villages while undercutting U.S. moral authority.
Corrupt government officials have made “it impossible for us to trust anyone,” said elder Sha Barar, from the village of Sha Joy. The people of that village and many others profess fear of the Taliban, and recount tales of brutality and wanton killings by the Taliban and their sympathizers. But they don’t see the Karzai government as a positive force in their lives.
Karzai said that talks need to continue with the Taliban “at a fixed address and with a more open agenda to tell us how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
But U.S. troops and Marines interviewed during the past month in Afghanistan question what negotiations would really mean, to both them and the Afghan people. And they almost universally believe that negotiating would be a mistake before achieving decisive gains they believe are attainable once oppressive rules of engagement are relaxed.
“What does it mean if we give in to the Taliban? They are the enemy,” Brooks said. “This place is going to be a safe haven for terrorists again. The government doesn’t care about the sacrifices already made. As far as the mission goes, I want to see these kids go to school and have a future but not at the expense of my friends — not anymore.”
Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner’s national security correspondent. She can be reached at scarter@washingtonexaminer.com.
Copyright 2010 The Washington Examiner. Reprinted from the Washington Examiner for educational purposes only. Visit the website at washingtonexaminer.com.
Questions
1. Define "rules of engagement."
2. a) Who is David Petraeus?
b) When did Gen. Petraeus say he was considering a major change of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan?
3. Why are troops in Afghanistan frustrated with the current rules of engagement?
4. a) What is the role of the Pentagon?
b) How do troops on the ground in Afghanistan view Pentagon officials?
5. Why do Afghans say it is hard for them to trust anyone?
6. Why do troops oppose negotiating a peace with the Taliban?
7. Consider what you have read in the article (and re-read para. 5), as well as another perspective on the rules of engagement under "Background" below.
a) Do you think the troops have valid concerns? Explain your answer.
b) How do you think General Petraeus should respond to the troops' concerns?
b) What can/should the American people do to acknowledge our troops' concerns?
Free Answers — Sign-up here to receive a daily email with answers.
Background
Read a blog posting in support for leaving the ROE as is: "Petraeus on ROE for Afghanistan" (posted June 29, 2010 at BlackFive.net)
There are many wondering what Petraeus will do about the Rules of Engagement. One thing that has been a bone of contention for a while is whether the ROE Gen. McChrystal put in place were overly restrictive and put our troops in too much danger. Petraeus has said he will "look very hard" at them, but let's keep one thing in mind. He has already done that. He was McChrystal's boss and could have had these rules changed any time in the last year. He hasn't, and for a good reason. They are the right rules and he agrees with them. ...
Now what he will do is issue some new guidance about how they have been interpreted and implemented, but he is not going to make any wholesale changes and unleash the dogs of war. The reason for that is that we can't achieve our goal by simply stacking dead [Taliban] and the civilians they hide amongst like cord wood. Trust me, if that was a productive strategy, I would be the first to shout for it from the highest mountain. But it isn't and if we want to turn the tide in Afghanistan, we need the people there to believe we are doing our level best to avoid killing them. They are the ones who can tell us who the bad guys are, but they have to trust us the the Afghan security forces and government first.
There have been a number of anecdotal accounts of our troops being hamstrung by the ROE. In virtually every case I have heard of, the problem was a lower level commander taking an overly-restrictive implementation of the ROE. It is quite likely that Gen. Petraeus will reinforce the stated point that these rules do not restrict our troops from calling in fire to protect themselves, and since he is pretty savvy that will likely be announced publicly. He will also reinforce the idea that we should do all we can to avoid civilian casualties. Those are not mutually exclusive goals and the bottom line is there needs to be a proper balance between them.
So expect some cosmetic changes to the ROE, but remember that Gen. Petraeus is deeply committed to population-centric COIN. That means taking care of the populace, giving them some skin in the game e.g. local projects and local security forces, and putting the responsibility to maintain this in the hands of the Afghans themselves, where it belongs.
Resources
Read an article from September "Congress to Scrutinize Rules of Engagement" at armytimes.com.
