Petraeus dos not lift tight ROE on indirect fires in Afghan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Yeoman_dai, Aug 4, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. They talk about Wikileaks!

    Any AQ honcho who reads this knows that using women and kids as shields is the way to go!!
  2. As an applicator of said Air Delivered Indirect and Direct Fires, the INS understanding and exploitation of our ROE remains the greatest constraint in applying all fires above organic inf wpns. That said, the contstraint is there to apply the necessary rigour to reduce to the absolute minimum unintended consequences and civillian casualties. Stability and HN buy-in to what we are providing is as critical to strat msn success as indirect fires are in FP and survivability of our forces to provide the face-to-face interaction.
    [Doffs cap to the combined forces doing the patrolling]

    What is obvious is that our gd troops get it and are hugely aware of the eggshells they tread.
  3. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    All those words... There is a career in management consultancy waiting for you...
  4. SDSR? October.......just preparing for the invitation to 1 UK CivDiv
  5. Pity they didn´t think about this when they first started taking out snipers in occupied houses with 500lb Jdaam or whatever they call their collateral damage accumulators,being cynical I think It´s got more to do with economics as guided weapons cost more than 40 mm or sniper ammo.

    Looks like the septics are going back to soldiering instead of butchery,sorry but killing 10 civilians to kill a lone sniper was never an acceptable option in a supposed war of hearts and minds.
  6. I seriously doubt any of it will matter in the end, we are not winning hearts and minds over there outside of a couple urban centers. The populace detests the Karzai administration and view it as a corrupt puppet government, we still bribe the majority of the warlords to play nice, and no amount of free medical clinics or candy is going to change the perceptions of primitive tribals that are pissed off simply because our personnel have walked across their patch of dirt. Really sad thing is that we are having a far better outcome in the war we shouldn't have fought than this one.
  7. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Can you explain?
  8. Think he means Iraq.
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    As I understand some of the latest reports, the Taliban have now got the dubious honour of killing and maiming a lot more civvies in Afghanistan than our respective mobs, and it's not just through badly placed IEDs either.

    Our improved ability to hold ground, followed by our efforts at improving the lives of Afghans in safer areas IS working because the Taliban see it as a threat that they have to counter by slamming the locals with assassinations and intimidation. Add the EIDs to the mix and you never know - there might be a form of 'awakening' that provides much better intelligence on IEDs, Taliban movements and so on, and what would be nice longer term is the tribes actually taking up arms properly to defeat the cancer in their midst.

    Indirect fire against civilian structures, though less of a risk to our forces during a battle increases the risk in the longer term due to the hostility of the locals on the receiving end, or who've had their compounds blown up.
  10. A serious question (on a serious thread) - when did 'indirect fire' become 'indirect fires'? Is it an American mangle-thing?
  11. I heard a mention on the news tonight that some members of the Taliban have asked for "joint inquiries" with the Coalition to investigate civilian deaths. Is the Taliban worried that with latest figures (which I hope are getting distributed around Helmand and elsewhere), they might not be quite able to count on just riding roughshod over everything and everyone and brushing abuses off for the glory of the Religion Of Peace? I know it's been frustrating for soldiers in the field, but is this an early indication that Courageous Restraint is finally starting to pay off?
  12. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    It's the current tense that throws me...
  13. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Whilst I would love to be wrong (again) I can't help but feel that your post may have a inkling of wishful-ness and a severe lack of grounding in reality. Obviously if you'd have written about the awakening in Iraq before it happened I'd have written the same thing then but as I've written time and time again on this website, its the individual that decides (or is pressured) to fight (us) and each individual has their own reason and motivations. Consequently, what works for tribe A does not work for tribe B and what works for Ahmed don't work for Iqbal.

    The prevention of collateral damage will go a long way to prevent tribe A's 20 year olds from picking up their AK's but it won't stop Ahmed who's dead keen on strapping a bomb to his chest and grabbing those virgins. Its a painful process and there's always another Ahmed around the corner...