Controversy in UK over Afstan rules of engagement

[MarkOttawa]

Two interesting stories:

"Army pleads for more troops after Afghanistan firefight", Sunday Times, April 23
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147806,00.html

Excerpts:
'...
...Officers have also warned that unless restrictions are relaxed on when soldiers can open fire the Taliban may inflict major losses.

Commanders complain that John Reid, the defence secretary, has tried to prevent news of attacks coming out and that they cannot make even the most minor military decision without referring it to his office for approval. So far, actions in southern Afghanistan have left at least five soldiers wounded, two seriously.

“The government is hiding the truth from the public,” one senior officer said last week. “I am sure they believe that if Afghanistan turns sour it will bring down the prime minister.

“If they don’t send more troops than the single battle-group that is going now, and allow them to do their job properly by giving them robust rules of engagement, then I can pretty much guarantee it will turn sour.” ..'

"Officers blame minister's interference for throwing Afghan mission into confusion", Telegraph, April 23
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/23/narmy23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/23/ixhome.html

Excerpts:

'British troop operations in Afghanistan have been thrown into confusion by Government interference over military tactics, according to senior officers, writes Sean Rayment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/23/narmy23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/23/ixhome.html

The Army and the Royal Marines are planning "search and destroy operations" against insurgent forces, The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week, despite assurances from John Reid, the Defence Secretary, that this would not happen.

Officers believe that such offensive operations are vital if British troops are to defend themselves safely from attacks and form a recognised part of the Army's "counter-insurgency" doctrine.

Mr Reid, however, had told the House of Commons that British troops were not going to Afghanistan "to wage war or carry out seek and destroy", operations that the Americans had been mounting.

The Government has repeatedly stated that Britain will take part only in counter-insurgency operations and not counter-terrorist operations...'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Isn't it sad to see that we aren't the only country with a problem when it comes to gov't and military.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The Government has repeatedly stated that Britain will take part only in counter-insurgency operations and not counter-terrorist operations...'

Sounds like an exercise in semantics if you ask me and this sentence doesn't make much sense.  Since we don't know what the ROE actually is, speculating further is rather futile...

I will say that my experience with the Brits is that they've never been hesitant to be extremely aggressive should the situation demand and I seriously doubt that things have changed a great deal in the year and a bit since I've been away from working with them...  FWIW.

 

[Marauder]

When it comes down to it, big boy's rules apply. Every soldier has to make that personal decision as to whether he would rather be tried by twelve, or buried by six. It sucks that national defence ministers are now just another layer of spineless "risk management" and ass-covering for the government of the day, but such are the times

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You are right.  But tell that to the guy that applied the ROE's, shoot a civilian who was in a vehicle that ran a ANA roadblock and is now getting grilled and doing gate duty.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Update: UK forces will have a combat role after all.  " Colonel admits British may have aggressive role in Afghanistan", The Independent, April 25:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article359927.ece

Excerpts:

' A senior commander [Colonel Stuart Douglas, the deputy commander of the British forces in Afghanistan] has acknowledged that British soldiers may carry out offensive operations in Afghanistan, despite government denials.

British commanders said they had been given permission to carry out aggressive operations including pre-emptive strikes in their areas of deployment in the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.

This gives British forces a power to take offensive action which is almost on par with that of the Americans, and far more than what is allowed by other Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan...

Questioned in Kabul, the Defence Secretary [John Reid] acknowledged that there will be "overlaps" between the British and the US-led "Enduring Freedom" operations.

"We are here to stabilise the country and the Taliban and the terrorists want to stop us doing that," Mr Reid said. "If they attack us we will defend ourselves and if defending ourselves ... means taking pre-emptive action we will do that. If they attack our troops we will attack back, in some cases taking the initiative."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at "The Torch":

"Afstan update: UK general takes command of expanding NATO mission"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-update-uk-general-takes-command.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The only debate I see are those that are against the Afghanistan deployment. There is an element within the British public and military that if a deployment could result in casualties then the troops should stay home. If that sentiment becomes widespread then Her Majesty's Forces will soon only be fit for ceremonial duties.

 

[geo]

way, hey... lousy rules of engagements?..... we've been there and lived thru that in FRY.