Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Times
April 5, 2008
Pg. 1
Move could anger NATO
By Sara A. Carter, The Washington Times
The Pentagon had hoped for years that its NATO allies and the Afghan government could fight a rising drug trade and a resurgent Taliban; President Bush yesterday decided to dispatch a "significant" number of troops to do the job themselves.
"The president indicated [at this week's NATO summit in Romania] that he expected in 2009 that the United States would make a significant additional contribution" of troops to Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters aboard his plane en route from Bucharest to Oman.
Mr. Gates predicted the troop increase would be well received at home, saying there is "very broad bipartisan support in the United States for being successful" in Afghanistan.
But military officials and some congressional members are concerned about the multinational operation there, which requires American forces to abide by NATO's rules of engagement, rather than the U.S. military's.
With more than 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. military and some congressional officials are concerned that the alliance's ever-growing complex rules of engagement will complicate efforts to conduct military operations against the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies, who do not abide by any rules of war.
Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter, of California, told The Washington Times that he "wants to be sure there are no inconsistencies with respect to the rules of engagement."
Mr. Hunter told The Times that his concern about a surge of 3,200 extra Marines to Afghanistan "is for the safety of U.S. troops operating in the region."
The congressman has already stated his concerns to "military officials and discussions will continue at the classified level," added his spokesman, Joe Kasper.
The Marine Corps rules of engagement are classified and determine how force can be used during a war operation.
Mr. Hunter canceled a press conference Wednesday where he planned to discuss the issue of U.S. troops operating under what he called conflicting rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hunter had a classified meeting the following day with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and expects to continue meeting military officials on the topic.
NATO forces in Afghanistan operate under the joint International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command structure, and generally obey its rules of engagement.
The ISAF mission is to provide security and assist the civil-military provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in the region, which build schools and infrastructure in the war-torn country. But this situation does not give commanders authority to engage with the Taliban when intelligence suggests they are close or planning an attack.
There are, however, situations where the NATO guidelines are stricter than U.S. policies, but the details are not publicly disclosed due to security concerns. Although U.S. rules of engagement will take precedence in certain cases of self-defense, U.S. military sources say NATO's rules basically give the Taliban the first free shot and add a needless extra consideration in a life-or-death matter.
"Our troops need clear-cut answers as to what rules of engagement they will be following," said one defense official on the condition of anonymity.
"It's difficult for the commanders and can be dangerous for the Marines if they are limited to NATO regulations," the official said.
Maj. Manuel J. Delarosa, spokesman for the Marine Corps. said, however, that the Marine Corps. Expeditionary Unit is satisfied with operations as they currently stand and that "the Marine Corps is absolutely comfortable with the established rules of engagement and command relationships between 24th MEU and ISAF."
Maj. Delarosa did not elaborate on whether the NATO rules of engagement will hamper or restrain Marines in battle.
As for the troop increase, the president didn't give specifics. Mr. Gates added that it would depend on conditions in the country at the time of deployment.
Mr. Gates said the decision was not linked to the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq.
In a staged transition, NATO began taking command in Afghanistan in 2004, starting with the northern region of the country, and assumed full operational command of Afghanistan on Oct. 5, 2006. ISAF is now under the command of Gen. Dan K. McNeill, who is soon to be replaced by Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, both Americans under the NATO command structure.
In January, Canadian troops told The Times that, like their NATO allies fighting in Afghanistan, they find themselves in a two-front public relations war — struggling for the cooperation of the Afghans as well as the support of a skeptical public at home. And in such a war, perceptions are as important as territory and body counts.
The Canadian soldiers said privately that their jobs have been made much more difficult by aggressive American military tactics.
The "hot-trigger" U.S. troops, they said, created unnecessary tension with the local populations whose support is essential to progress in the war on terror.
Equally damaging, they said, is the Americans' indiscriminate use of air power and aggressive interrogation techniques that have eroded support for the mission among Canadian voters and taxpayers.
ISAF troops in the region total roughly 47,000 troops, with the U.S. being the largest contributor to NATO's forces.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also announced at the NATO summit that France would send an additional battalion, or about 700 troops to the region, in order to relieve long-serving U.S. troops.
Betsy Pisik contributed to this report.
April 5, 2008
Pg. 1
Move could anger NATO
By Sara A. Carter, The Washington Times
The Pentagon had hoped for years that its NATO allies and the Afghan government could fight a rising drug trade and a resurgent Taliban; President Bush yesterday decided to dispatch a "significant" number of troops to do the job themselves.
"The president indicated [at this week's NATO summit in Romania] that he expected in 2009 that the United States would make a significant additional contribution" of troops to Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters aboard his plane en route from Bucharest to Oman.
Mr. Gates predicted the troop increase would be well received at home, saying there is "very broad bipartisan support in the United States for being successful" in Afghanistan.
But military officials and some congressional members are concerned about the multinational operation there, which requires American forces to abide by NATO's rules of engagement, rather than the U.S. military's.
With more than 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. military and some congressional officials are concerned that the alliance's ever-growing complex rules of engagement will complicate efforts to conduct military operations against the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies, who do not abide by any rules of war.
Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter, of California, told The Washington Times that he "wants to be sure there are no inconsistencies with respect to the rules of engagement."
Mr. Hunter told The Times that his concern about a surge of 3,200 extra Marines to Afghanistan "is for the safety of U.S. troops operating in the region."
The congressman has already stated his concerns to "military officials and discussions will continue at the classified level," added his spokesman, Joe Kasper.
The Marine Corps rules of engagement are classified and determine how force can be used during a war operation.
Mr. Hunter canceled a press conference Wednesday where he planned to discuss the issue of U.S. troops operating under what he called conflicting rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hunter had a classified meeting the following day with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and expects to continue meeting military officials on the topic.
NATO forces in Afghanistan operate under the joint International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command structure, and generally obey its rules of engagement.
The ISAF mission is to provide security and assist the civil-military provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in the region, which build schools and infrastructure in the war-torn country. But this situation does not give commanders authority to engage with the Taliban when intelligence suggests they are close or planning an attack.
There are, however, situations where the NATO guidelines are stricter than U.S. policies, but the details are not publicly disclosed due to security concerns. Although U.S. rules of engagement will take precedence in certain cases of self-defense, U.S. military sources say NATO's rules basically give the Taliban the first free shot and add a needless extra consideration in a life-or-death matter.
"Our troops need clear-cut answers as to what rules of engagement they will be following," said one defense official on the condition of anonymity.
"It's difficult for the commanders and can be dangerous for the Marines if they are limited to NATO regulations," the official said.
Maj. Manuel J. Delarosa, spokesman for the Marine Corps. said, however, that the Marine Corps. Expeditionary Unit is satisfied with operations as they currently stand and that "the Marine Corps is absolutely comfortable with the established rules of engagement and command relationships between 24th MEU and ISAF."
Maj. Delarosa did not elaborate on whether the NATO rules of engagement will hamper or restrain Marines in battle.
As for the troop increase, the president didn't give specifics. Mr. Gates added that it would depend on conditions in the country at the time of deployment.
Mr. Gates said the decision was not linked to the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq.
In a staged transition, NATO began taking command in Afghanistan in 2004, starting with the northern region of the country, and assumed full operational command of Afghanistan on Oct. 5, 2006. ISAF is now under the command of Gen. Dan K. McNeill, who is soon to be replaced by Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, both Americans under the NATO command structure.
In January, Canadian troops told The Times that, like their NATO allies fighting in Afghanistan, they find themselves in a two-front public relations war — struggling for the cooperation of the Afghans as well as the support of a skeptical public at home. And in such a war, perceptions are as important as territory and body counts.
The Canadian soldiers said privately that their jobs have been made much more difficult by aggressive American military tactics.
The "hot-trigger" U.S. troops, they said, created unnecessary tension with the local populations whose support is essential to progress in the war on terror.
Equally damaging, they said, is the Americans' indiscriminate use of air power and aggressive interrogation techniques that have eroded support for the mission among Canadian voters and taxpayers.
ISAF troops in the region total roughly 47,000 troops, with the U.S. being the largest contributor to NATO's forces.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also announced at the NATO summit that France would send an additional battalion, or about 700 troops to the region, in order to relieve long-serving U.S. troops.
Betsy Pisik contributed to this report.