http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7890/pub_detail.asp

 

November 11, 2010


More on ROE, COIN, Governance and Apathy


 <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.181/author_detail.asp>
John Bernard

                                

 

 

I was brought into a thread started by a concerned citizen over the debacle
in Afghanistan (the Pentagon really) and asked to put in my two cents. For
what it is worth; here is what I shared:

 

We can fully expect the Rules of Engagement to continue to tighten and
become even more deadly to our troops as time passes. The reason I say this
has absolutely nothing to do with some ethereal 'gifting' some will imagine
I possess but simply because I understand what has promulgated the need for
them.

 

In the thread that was passed on to me earlier today; someone asked if there
was a way to determine exactly how many American troops and Marines had been
killed by the ROE and my answer is simple, perfectly logical, provable and
without possibility of a proper retort; since June of 2009 - virtually every
combat related death, in Afghanistan, can be laid at the threshold of the
current ROE.

 

There is a general misunderstanding among those who are now 'awakened' about
what those rules are, when such rules are dictated, by whom they are
dictated and why they are as tight as they are at present. What I hope to do
in the next few lines is to give you every bit of information you need to
fully understand all of this as well as something you can use when you speak
to your Congressmen and other 'servants' in government.

 

First you need to approach this with an understanding of just how ignorant
nearly every one of our elected 'servants' are on this subject.

 

Second, you need to understand that all of them feel they are indemnified,
Constitutionally, from any type of penalty for faulty decision-making,
willful ignorance, apathy, or half-hearted answers with the specific intent
of placating seriously concerned citizens.

 

Third; you need to be illuminated on the history of Islam, Military
protocol, Strategy, the relationship of the three branches of government
with the Military and our collective relationship to the world.

 

Fourth; you will have to understand and more importantly make your
'servants' understand that the assessment that was done during the early
planning stages of the war, on the enemy and the people of Afghanistan was
fatally flawed, historically incorrect and doomed to place our troops in
jeopardy from every component of Afghan society until our Marines and
Soldiers are literally surrounded by an enemy that is 1400 years old.

 

Fifth; because of their shared religious heritage and worship of their deity
Allah (who IS NOT the God of the Bible) and their desire to fulfill his
mandates in the Koran to kill all those who will not take a knee to him,
there is virtually no hope of reconciliation.

 

Sixth; because of our stubborn adherence to COIN and it's damnable ROE, we
have willfully turned over control of the battle field to the enemy.

 

The fact is, within the first 6 months of our involvement in Afghanistan, we
had managed to topple the sitting government, scatter the Taliban like the
vermin they are, establish our puppet (Karzai) in Kabul and instill a
requisite amount of fear into the people, government, Taliban and
neighboring countries of Afghanistan. Over the following years, we lost
focus largely due to our involvement in Iraq.

 

By early 2009, we had re-focused on Afghanistan, but with a different vision
and different purpose and therein lies the real problem. The real problem is
not the ROE; it is the strategy that bore the ROE and that is Counter
Insurgency Doctrine.

 

Although elements of COIN are readily found in almost every military
engagement since the dawn of mankind and war, COIN as a stand-alone doctrine
has only been with us since 1940. Since that time it has been tried by other
countries and on other battle fields and in all but one instance - failed.

 

Because of the nature of COIN and the intent of the military force operating
within that paradigm, it requires an unusually high degree of restraint when
engaging the enemy and most especially around civilians. That is because,
the actual intent is to strengthen the resolve of the people and their
government to seek out and destroy the insurgency that has beset them. One
of the problems in Afghanistan is that the Taliban has been erroneously
identified as a foreign 'insurgency'.

 

They are in fact an Afghan phenomenon whose ranks are filled largely by
Afghans, Pakistanis and some foreign fighters of the same religion and
similar philosophy of jurisprudence. The reason that I can say with absolute
clarity that the insurgency, while part Pakistani, is a local phenomenon is
because the border that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, effectively
splits the largest communal tribe in the region, the Pashtun and they have
never recognized it since it's appearance in 1894.

 

Because we have already determined (falsely) that the Afghans were illegally
infiltrated by the Taliban and that they were not welcome, it was determined
that Counter Insurgency Strategy would best serve the needs of Afghanistan
and the security interests of the United States by minimizing civilian
casualties while 'encouraging' the 'innocent' Afghan people to take an
active role in eradicating the Taliban. This goal, of course, was watered
down even further under President Obama who even removed typical military
jargon from the lexicon so as not to 'create ill feeling'.

 

The 'formal document' detailing the level of restraint used on the battle
field in which we find the 'official ROE', is secret and can only be viewed
or discussed by people with the right security clearance. This makes a very
convenient argument against hearings when they are demanded by our
representatives. This argument, however, is ludicrous because the people who
know our ROE the best, is the enemy; the Taliban.

 

I hope this has given you some indication of where we are at present. It is
most frustrating for me to know that this is unlikely to ever be solved
because there are very few in Congress - or anywhere in representative
government for whom this is a front-and-center issue and given the results
of the election; they are right.

 

The American people didn't vote the way they did because of a concern for
the plight of the military in Afghanistan; they did it for reasons of money
and that is where your new crop of elected 'servants' will be focused. They
can continue to be willfully ignorant while claiming adherence to the will
of the people; the people can continue to believe what they have been told,
that Islam is a religion of peace and the Pentagon can continue as they have
against an enemy falsely assessed.

 

The President will find a reason to exit Afghanistan long before it becomes
an election issue, Iran will have subverted the sovereignty of both Iraq and
Afghanistan in less than two years, we will continue to distance ourselves
from our only ally in the region, Israel and we, will become an anachronism.

 

Having said that; let me tell you this: You have listed the Oath on your web
site but there is an equally important mandate handed down to each and every
one of us who has actually 'served'; they are the General Orders and the 5th
general order is the one I want you to keep as your Holy Oath; "To Quit My
Post Only When Properly Relieved'. I don't know about you; but I am still
breathing.

 

Semper Fidelis;

 

John Bernard

 

 <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/> FamilySecurityMatters.org
Contributor John Bernard is a retired Marine First Sergeant who writes on
Counter Insurgency Doctrine, Islam, Rules of Engagement and Middle Eastern
culture, in his blog:  <http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/> Let Them Fight or
Bring Them Home.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to