# New ROEs for Canadian troops



## jacksparrow (3 Jul 2009)

IDNUMBER  200907030176 
PUBLICATION:  Edmonton Journal 
DATE:  2009.07.03 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  News 
PAGE:  A15 
DATELINE:  KABUL 
BYLINE:  Matthew Fisher 
SOURCE:  Canwest News Service; With files from Saskatoon StarPhoenix  
WORD COUNT:  546 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimizing civilian casualties new priority; ; Canadian troops given updated rules of engagement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian commanders in Afghanistan received new fighting orders on Thursday which will prevent their troops from shooting at the Taliban if there is any risk of civilian casualties, even if it means allowing the enemy to escape. 

The stricter rules of engagement were laid down in a "tactical directive" sent to all foreign forces in Afghanistan by U. S. army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was President Barack Obama's recent choice to take over the NATO-led war here. 

"The guidance to the troops clarifies that citizens are the centre of gravity and that we should do everything to gain their support and we must do everything to avoid civilian casualties," Col. Greg Julian, the top U. S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said in an interview at the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul. 

"In some cases, that will mean considering allowing insurgents to escape from that particular fight to fight another day if a commander feels that they can move away safely without causing harm to his own troops." 

There was "no doubt" that the Taliban would try to take advantage of the extraordinary new measures "if they see that we are not firing on homes or population centres" Julian said, but he cautioned that the policy was not absolute. Such decisions still rested with commanders on the ground and "we are not precluding them from firing back in all circumstances," he said. 

A count provided by NATO says 973 civilians were killed in fighting in Afghanistan in 2008 including 226 killed by foreign forces. 

The new orders affect about 76,000 U. S. and NATO troops under McChrystal's command, including 2,830 Canadians. It is expected to be passed all the way down to the platoon level within a few days. An unclassified statement explaining the new orders would be released soon, Julian said. 

McChrystal's directive was in response to a growing clamour in Afghanistan over civilian casualties that have mostly been caused by air strikes called in by foreign forces on the ground. But Julian said the new orders also covered culturally sensitive issues such as breaking into Afghan homes and searches of women as well as what foreign forces are supposed to do when driving. 

The new order came as 4,000 U. S. Marines and 650 Afghan forces backed by scores of assault and transport helicopters are embroiled in the biggest offensive of the war, swarming in to wrest control of the southern Helmand River valley from the Taliban. Six thousand more marines were on standby in Helmand and could join the operation. 

The offensive, which is taking place near where members of the 22nd Royal Regiment of Canada-- the Van Doo--are based in Kandahar, was directed at the biggest opium poppy growing area in the world. It had begun at this time because "we now have the resources to execute this strategy," Julian said, referring to an additional 20,000 combat troops ordered to Afghanistan this spring by Obama. 

Meanwhile, a military insignia to present to troops who saw combat in Afghanistan has been scrapped. The decision was made after Defence Department officials consulted with military human-resources personnel and the Pentagon, which warned that a similar U. S. badge created animosity among soldiers, according to newly released documents. 

As well, Saskatchewan butcher Trent Ens is sending 2,500 packages of beef jerky to the Canadian troops. 


Back


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2009)

> Canadian commanders in Afghanistan received new fighting orders on Thursday which will prevent their troops from shooting at the Taliban if there is any risk of civilian casualties, even if it means allowing the enemy to escape.



Too wide of a brush.
Canadian soldiers already put a huge emphasis on protecting civilians.
Even during big bad scary op medusa I've listened to Canadian commanders checking fire because they were unsure if civilians were danger close to buildings and shit. Canadians were taking fire from buildings but civies were in the area so we didn't just flatten em all out.

I've often seen soldiers (choose to) let vehicles get a little too close to them because they wanted to give that little bit of extra chance that the vehicle failing to stop is just someone who's just having a brain fart. Soldiers are putting their lives at risk above and beyond when the ROEs allow them to engage for the sole purpose of trying to protect civilians.

They key is it being the *soldiers choice.* The soldier on the ground makes the final decision.
When you start taking away the soldiers ability to make that call you're putting his or her life at much greater risk.

I've also seen (later tour) dudes in my platoon let vehicles and shit close up with them about a hockey stick length away.
Why were soldiers putting their own live and the lives of their buddies at risk to such a stupid degree? Because some of the higher ups put a lot of pressure on young soldiers and made them more afraid of the investigation system than getting killed. People were afraid of following the ROEs.

I believe it was the out going OC who told us "If a car isn't stopping you should just let it ram you and explode, oyur vehicles are designed for it. It's better than hurting a civilian by accident" (and subsequently the bad PR I guess?).

To me that conflicts with 'nothing in the ROEs prevent you from using deadly force to protect yourself or other members of ISAF'.

I can't imagine this new rule will prompt the Taliban to surround themselves with civilians at all times. Nope not at all.


----------



## maniac779 (3 Jul 2009)

Flawed,

Excellent post.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jul 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I can't imagine this new rule will prompt the Taliban to surround themselves with civilians at all times. Nope not at all.


They already do that.  Let us not forget that ROE is not to be discussed, and anything in the press is for the press.  It may reflect the spirit of ROE, but it will not lay out the when we can/when we can't shoot.  I know that there is a political reason for this announcement: a blind man can see it.  The troops on the ground know when they can and cannot shoot.  I don't think that's the target for any amendments in ROE.  If the Taliban think that they are safer due to this ROE amendment (if it really is an amendment), then they have another thing coming.  Also remember that ROE is a chain of command issue, and issued to the Canadian Forces on operations by the Chief of Defence Staff, not by Gen McChrystal.


----------



## Jammer (3 Jul 2009)

Seriously though....where was the beef jerky when we were gone?


----------

