Congressman calls for hearing on military’s restrictive rules of engagement

[Originally published at The US Report]

A congressman said that Congress should review the military’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan, saying, “They have proved too often to be fatal” to US troops.

Rep. Walter Jones (R – N.C.), whose district includes Camp Lejeune, called for the House Armed Services Committee to hold a hearing on the rules, which families of fallen Marines have called “shameful” and “suicidal.”

When Gen. Stanley McChrystal, US Army, became the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan in July, he released directives calling for “leaders at all levels to scrutinize and limit the use of force like close-air support against residential compounds and other locations likely to produce civilian casualties.” In addition to limiting air support, the new ROE also limit artillery support and require troops to break contact when civilians are present.

Gen. McChrystal’s efforts to reduce or eliminate noncombatant casualties are undoubtedly well-intentioned, but limiting our forces offers the enemy numerous tactical advantages that they otherwise lacked.

During one battle in September, four Marines, their Navy Corpsman, eight Afghan soldiers, and the unit’s interpreter died when commanders rejected repeated calls for artillery or air support, despite assurances that enemy forces were nowhere near the village. When the team decided to pull back, they requested smoke rounds to mask their withdrawal, but that support wasn’t approved for nearly an hour. Helicopters did appear – two hours after the battle began.

Numerous families have expressed outrage over the military’s rules, including parents of fallen service members. John Bernard, a retired Marine first sergeant and father of fallen Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard calls the rules “murderous.”

In a letter to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in July, Bernard wrote that the rules are “nothing less than disgraceful, immoral and fatal for our Marines, sailors, and soldiers on the ground. The Marines and soldiers that are ‘holding’ territories of dubious worth like Now Zad and Golestan without reinforcement, denial of fire-support and refusal to allow them to hunt and kill the very enemy we are there to confront are nothing more than sitting ducks.”

Tragically, Bernard’s son died three weeks later in Helmand Province. According to the Marine Corps Times, Bernard is disappointed that Collins has handled his complaint as that of a single constituent, and not of a representative of the hundreds of people that have contacted him. Bernard covers matters related to the rules of engagement at his blog Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.

Afghans themselves have called for less restrictive rules as well. When a September airstrike killed over a hundred Afghans – most of which were Taliban fighters – an Afghan council chairman informed McChrystal’s fact-finding team that NATO forces should be acting “more strongly,”adding that “We’ve been too nice to the thugs.”

Another key Afghan official informed the team that he doubted the “rumor” that any of the casualties were civilians. “These were bad people,” he said, “and this was a good operation.”

An Afghan named Sharaf, whose son lost his leg to a Taliban mine, said, “I do not mind if I am killed, provided that the Americans get rid of the Taliban this time.”

The government claims that their “enduring commitment” to Afghanistan will only endure until July, 2011, so perhaps Gen. McChrystal should heed the advice of those who have to live under the threat of the Taliban for the rest of their lives.

The military maintains that the more restrictive rules will ultimately result in fewer casualties. But when our rules offer the enemy numerous tactical advantages, it seems unclear how that will be the case. Besides, history shows the best way to reduce noncombatant deaths is to win the war.

“We need to have this debate on behalf of the families as well as the Marines and the Army,” Jones said during a congressional proceeding last month. “What are the rules of engagement? What can they do and cannot do? When I read these articles about the number that have died just because we could not give them cover in certain situations, if that’s the way we’re supposed to fight a war, then that’s a poor way to fight the war.”