# More Troops, Tougher ROE in Afghanistan



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2005)

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051007-012434-3033r

"NATO is set to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to 15,000 and engage in counterinsurgency tasks. Alliance chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking during a visit to Kabul Thursday, said the organization would expand its mission in the south and eventually the international peacekeeping force would take over command of all forces throughout the country..."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051007_2979.html

"The United States wants its NATO allies to change the rules of engagement for its troops in Afghanistan as the alliance prepares to take over a more dangerous area, defense officials said this week...  American officials would like to see more robust rules of engagement before NATO troops move into the area around Kandahar..."


----------



## Big T (8 Oct 2005)

SO... more ROBUST... also meaning "Rough and Crude" rules... So they can "Shoot first, ask questions later"???


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2005)

Big T said:
			
		

> SO... more ROBUST... also meaning "Rough and Crude" rules... So they can Shoot first, Think later???



And were do you get that implication from?


----------



## Big T (8 Oct 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And were do you get that implication from?



How would you take it?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Oct 2005)

This means virtually nothing to the average Canadian soldier on the ground.   Our ROE are already very robust indeed (and OPSEC intervenes to prevent further discussion).

What the article and commentary refers to is the fact that each country has a series of caveats on the employment of their soldiers in a multinational context.   In ISAF, for instance, some countries limited their soldiers' activities to a particular police district within the centre of the city and would not allow their forces to operate outside that extremely limited geographical area.

If the US thinks that each individual country will give up those caveats, they're dreaming in technicolor.   I must say, though, that these caveats make mission planning very, very difficult.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2005)

Big T said:
			
		

> How would you take it?



Well for starters, how about the ROE tend to covered under OPSEC issues so unless you (the general you, not anyone specific) are currently in theater or part of the planning staff, they are not widely known, so in that regard "robust" can mean any number of things.   Jumping to the conclusion that it will become the OK Corral just because the Americans have requested this is a little asinine,   especially since you have an empty profile which could possibly indicate that you have zero experience in the military in any form (If I am wrong I wait to be corrected), which in turn nullifies any comments you could possibly make about ROEs and how they will in turn be interpreted by troops on the ground.


----------



## Franko (8 Oct 2005)

As being one of the troops on the ground actually using the new ROEs....

This topic will now be locked.

Gents...this discussion can only lead down one path....OPSEC violations   :

Regards


----------



## Gunner (8 Oct 2005)

Army.ca Members,

In consultation with the other moderators, I have reopened this topic.  

ROE for specific operations are classified and the release of any information pertaining to ongoing or future operations is a breach of operational security.  We have members of the Canadian Forces deployed and the release of this information, intentional or otherwise, could place their lives at risk and potentially place your life at risk the next time you are deployed overseas.  Discussion should remain general in nature on what ROE are and why are they used and should avoid references to actual events.  If you are unsure, please PM a moderator.  If you notice a questionable post, feel free to use the "report to moderator function". 

Members of army.ca are reminded of the OPSEC rules outlined in the conduct guidelines:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Failure to adhere to army.ca policy could result in the issuing of warnings or if your actions are serious enough, turned over the military police to investigate.

Cheers,


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2005)

ROEs change.  They have been different for every Mission/Tour that the CF have been involved with since we started this business.  Not only are they different for every Mission, but they can be changed in the middle of a Mission or Tour as Situations (Political, Domestic, Militarily, etc.) change.  They are not written in stone and thus are flexible enough to change with the times.  As the situation on any mission can escalate, so must the ROEs.  It would be suicide not to.  It is just a fact of life that this has to be done to protect our soldiers and save lives.


----------

