RSS Feed MenuSo what’s the deal with McChrystal’s initial command guidance to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan?
As the Associated Press reported:
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday . . .
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” Smith said. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”
General Stanley McChrystal has just broken a combination of Rules No. 2 and No. 3 of Sean Linnane’s 3 Rules of Leadership:
- Never lie to the troops.
- Never tell a man to do anything you’re not willing to do yourself.
- Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed.
McChrystal’s command guidance forces combat commanders and NCOs to modify their behavior, to seek loopholes – in military planning terms, this General Officer guidance is known as an artificial constraint.
General McChrystal’s order basically outlines tactical guidance for the enemy: if you were the Taliban, where would you initiate all contact from now on?
This order will cause our forces to hesitate under fire, and in combat hesitation is fatal.
Essentially, we’ve just instituted the same self-imposed “no-fire” zones that assisted our Communist enemies in Vietnam.
Furthermore, the AP adds that:
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence,” and not the number of militants killed.
I agree with one aspect of this sentence: in war, body count math is not a measure of victory.
Originally posted at STORMBRINGER.
ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:06 am
You should email him. I’m sure this newly promoted general officer and apprentice counter insurgency warfare practitioner can’t wait to spend a few hours receiving pointers from a real expert like you on how he should run ops in Afghanistan. You owe it to the country.
Brutus1776 // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hooah Sean. I agree wholeheartedly.As for ottovbvs’s erudite commentary… I’ll let someone else waste their time.
midcon // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:03 am
Sean,Ok, I will accept that thoe orders will increase danger to our troops, if you will tell me what rules of engagement you would impose to protect non-combatant/civilians in their own country and their own houses.Now if you plan to fire back with – war is hell and people get hurt, then don’t bother to answer. We are losing the war in Afghanistan because we can’t seem to get the baddies without significant collateral damage. If I have a choice between dying while you save me from tyranny or living under pyscho religious fanatics, then I would like to reconsider whether I can afford your help.So, man up dude, give me the tactical lowdown on how we can avoid all the civilian casulties that is hurting our effort over there. I haven’t seen any answers yet.
ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 am
Brutus1776 wrote 28 minutes ago…….You should also email the general, your’re obviously another expert in the military department….if not the irony department.
balconesfault // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:35 am
Sean’s commentary would be appropriate had America been attacked by the Afghan people – and thus we could fairly consider casualties incurred by the Afghan people to be just “part of war”.But we weren’t attacked by the Afghan people. Hell – we weren’t even attacked by the Taliban on 9/11, but by terrorists that the Taliban was allowing to base in their country in exchange for much needed currency given their crackdown on opium production and stupid refusal to allow pipeline deals.For that sin, we certainly should have deposed the Taliban. And we did. But at some point, the job of preventing the Taliban from retaking power is going to have to rest in the hands of the Afghanistan people … and I’m personally not interested in America committing to keep the Taliban out of power until the last Afghan citizen falls.
barker13 // Jun 23, 2009 at 2:00 pm
We should get out of Afghanistan. BILL
ottovbvs // Jun 23, 2009 at 2:28 pm
barker13 wrote 24 minutes ago”We should get out of Afghanistan.” BILL…….my god Barking and I agree on something….There is hope for mankind…. I actually think that’s Obama’s and Gates’ plan…..They are going through the motions looking for some opportunity to get off the hook.
balconesfault // Jun 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I have been saying for months that Obama has been overly hawkish on Afghanistan. I think there is a statute of limitations for how long you can militarily occupy another country and not get to the point where the citizens start supporting opposition forces just because you’re occupying their country – and I think we passed that long ago.As some have said – how can you tell Obama isn’t really a liberal? Look at his defense budgets. A true liberal would start with the short-term goal of getting our defense budgets back to 3% of GDP as a starter, with the long term goal of even deeper cuts.
joescannura // Jun 23, 2009 at 4:36 pm
we have to make sure the Taliban isn’t in power anywhere, any time. But Obama has made Afghanistan so important though, and we’ll never be gone if he gets his way, so much for the move on.orgers. I mean, i fail to see how afghanistan could be any quicker a fight than Iraq was. The question is will he reengage in Iraq if necessary. prolly not. He’s obsessed with calling it a “war of choice”, so he’ll get the pacifists to like him with saying it enough.
sinz54 // Jun 23, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I agree with folks here who say that the continuing fight against the Taliban has reached a point of diminishing returns. If we could destroy al-Qaeda inside Waziristan (Pakistan), I wouldn’t care about Afghanistan. And if we can’t, then Afghanistan would make a poor consolation prize anyway.
sinz54 // Jun 23, 2009 at 6:21 pm
ottovbvs:According to his bio:Sean Linnane is the pseudonym of a US Army (retired) Special Forces Combat Diver NCO, “still serving in other capacities.”So “apprentice” he most certainly is not.That’s why his face is concealed.
RLHotchkiss // Jun 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Your not helping the conservative cause by saying that there are some orders that won’t be obeyed. We expect our troops to follow orders, including orders not to return fire even if it results in deaths.Afghan civilian causalities are a real damage to our strategic aims. The reduction of Afghan civilian casualties will come at the cost of American soldiers lives. Whether this the best strategy or not is strictly a civilian decision. If you have a policy dispute the only person to question is Obama who bears total and complete responsibility for every military policy which either flows directly from his orders or indirectly from his acceptance of the decisions of the military commanders.I have been more and more concerned about former members of the military say what the troops will and won’t do. There should be no question that they will obey any and all lawful orders.Troops are asked to do incomprehensible things. Fight to the death with one group one day and than turn their guns on the same people the next day. Troops die to salvage treasured personal possessions of politically connected civilians, troops are sent to their deaths for the sole purpose of a photo opp or a line in a speech. When you join the armed forces you have agreed to follow lawful civilian orders to your death. And many of these orders are unconscionable when viewed individuallyBut more than any one situation or any one soldier the principal that lawful orders whether they be to bunk with openly gay soldiers, to withhold fire in face of the enemy, to capture a hill for the evening news. A soldier’s life lost in the pursuance of .a lawful order is precious gift and to imply that gift is not given willingly or that its meaning is degraded by the natures of the orders degrades their memories.American troops died in the Battle of New Orleans after the war was over, American troops died in Korea because they’re WWII surplus munitions misfired, Soldiers in Vietnam died because the Korean war surplus dressings would affix, because the initial munitions for the new rifles jammed, because it cost less money in munitions to provide them with simi-automatic as opposed to fully automatic weapons, Soldiers in Iraq died because they weren’t provided with body armor, because their Humvee’s weren’t armored, because the electricity in their quarters were faulty. Soldiers died of heat exhaustion because our intelligence wrongly suggested a strong danger of chemical attacks. We can’t pretend that every soldier’s death was necessary that every order was given for good reasons or on good advice. But should never question a soldiers duty to follow a lawful order or his willingness to do so to his or her death.
joescannura // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:09 pm
in war time people step over the line, they don’t totally follow orders. that’s just simply historical fact and realism.
VA Shepherd // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:17 pm
RLHotchkiss – “Your not helping the conservative cause”This website is not helping the conservative cause.
RLHotchkiss // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm
jeescannurathere is a difference between acknowledging that not all orders are followed and implying that any particular lawful order will not be followed.There are soldiers that will hold their fire and sacrifice their lives for incomprehensible reasons, even though this isn’t the order described. Soldiers follow lawful orders and we should not demean them by implying they would not as a matter of course.
RLHotchkiss // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Hundreds of US soldiers were summarily executed during WWI for cowardliness in the face of the enemy, Do we say that we will not send our troops into battle because they are cowards.Many prisoners of war gave false confessions, strategic information and even aid to the enemy after being captures but do we call our troops disloyal.No, we hold our soldiers to high ideals and we are not wrong to expect that they will fulfill them.
joescannura // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:14 pm
why can’t you just acknowledge that a particular one is not even going to be possible to follow? why can’t you be specific, I don’t get it?
SFTor // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:33 pm
We are in a mess.The invasion of Afghanistan marked the beginning of the war against Al-Qaeda.Iraq was the beginning of the mess, and turned into an even bigger mess as time went on. Taking our eye off Afghanistan compounded the mess.Now the military is trying to bolster civilian sympathy in Afghanistan so we can buy some time and get Al-Qaeda to implode. There are signs of inner strife in the organization, and signs of mounting resistance to them in Pakistan.In the meantime our soldiers will be trying to do their jobs with their thumbs and forefingers tied together, instead of being the highly trained killing machines they are meant to be. When you send U.S. troops into wars where the enemy is clearly defined, along with associated military objectives, the can do what they are supposed to do—kill and win. Then it works for the most part.Don’t blame the military or general McChrystal. He is now trying to provide the outcome that is needed politically to neutralize Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.We have learned yet again that you only start wars when you absolutely have to.
midcon // Jun 24, 2009 at 5:08 am
Without laboriously delving into the history of what we have done in Afghanistan, the simple analysis is that the previous Administration had an overwhelming desire to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama (Osama Bin Forgotten) shoved to the back burner.With nothing more than a token effort in Afghanistan, Al Queda, the Taliban, tribal chiefs, and the poppy growers were permitted to wreak havoc and increase their influence and power. We squandered the world’s and the peoples of Afghanistan good will.Now we face a situation with a weak central government, a strong enemy, and the civilians caught in the middle. Overcoming a tribal mentality that has existed for centuries requires that we win hearts and minds. You can’t win hearts and minds unless you do two things. The first is to not kill the ones you want to win over to your side. The second is being able to protect the ones whose hearts and minds you want to win.When faced with what is essentially a hostage situation where civilians are caught in the line of fire if you kill the hostages you lose the war.Our military has to balance defeating the enemy with ensuring that there is something left when they are done. That’s a nearly impossible task. I believe that our forces are capability of doing that but there is a cost as there is a cost in all wars.Is there case to be made continuing our efforts in Afghanistan? I’m not sure. But as long as we are there, we cannot intentionally put civilians in the line of fire because that is the path of certain defeat.Afghanistan is indeed a mess and any strategy regarding that country has risks and costs. I’m glad I’m not in charge and I’m glad the ones in charge are not acting like a bull in a china shop.Recognition that we are dealing not with a country but with tribes will gain us much in formulating a strategy. Except for the Democrat and Republican tribes, we as nation are used to acting as nation. The error we have continued to make is treating Afghanistan as if it were cohesive nation like the U.S. It’s not, it is a conglomeration of tribes who do not like each other and don’t like us either.
ottovbvs // Jun 24, 2009 at 5:45 am
sinz54 6:21 PMottovbvs:According to his bio:Sean Linnane is the pseudonym of a US Army (retired) Special Forces Combat Diver NCO, “still serving in other capacities.”So “apprentice” he most certainly is not.That’s why his face is concealed.”……..Sinz I’ve often commented upon your missing comprehension classes but if you’d like to read my comment again you’ll see I’m indulging in a little gentle irony in suggesting that General MacChrystal is the apprentice in counter insurgency warfare. When I see many of your comments I’m often reminded of that sign one used to see dotted around offices “Engage brain before opening mouth.”
sinz54 // Jun 24, 2009 at 6:38 am
ottovbvs: I stand corrected on my quoting your word “apprentice.”Nevertheless, your sarcasm toward Mr. Linnane (“a real expert like you….. You owe it to the country”) was clearly intended to suggest that Mr. Linnane had little or nothing of value to offer the military on ops in Afghanistan. Well, he does. He himself is a retired Special Forces non-com, who has doubtless been in situations in which he’s had to shoot. It’s men like him who would have to deal with the orders like these from General McChrystal.Look, I don’t care what put-downs you hurl at me. But you really should show some more respect to Mr. Linnane. Like you, he has served his country honorably in the military. Unlike you, he doesn’t loathe that type of work, and he wants America to win.
ottovbvs // Jun 24, 2009 at 7:21 am
sinz54 wrote 32 minutes ago…….Sinz old boy…..I was an artillery officer and also served in military intelligence….I’ve smelt the odd dead body…..however I’m not stupid enough to think this qualifies me to give patronizing lectures to a senior American general who is an acknowledged expert on counter insurgency warfare and even worse accuse him risking the lives of the men under his command…..Linnane is behaving like an ass not least in his ridiculous costume photo which is extremely bad form…..faced with such inanity one has the choice of getting angry or treating his strictures against the general with the humor they so richly deserve.
joescannura // Jun 24, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Who blamed the guy? No one blamed him, he just commented that eh thought the policy was not a good one. If your not even allowed to criticize generals, who make most decisions about the war, then were really up shit creek without a paddle.
ottovbvs // Jun 24, 2009 at 1:57 pm
joescannura wrote 5 minutes ago”This order will cause our forces to hesitate under fire, and in combat hesitation is fatal.Essentially, we’ve just instituted the same self-imposed “no-fire” zones that assisted our Communist enemies in Vietnam.”………He’s just said MacChrystal is: a) assisting the Taliban b) putting the lives of the men under his command at risk…….You can read I take it.
ltwpolitics // Jun 24, 2009 at 11:20 pm
What is the military’s mission? Does killing civilians undermine that mission?If our goal is to create some sort of more-or-less stable society not hell bent on killing us, then avoiding civilian deaths is highly desirable. If our officers can’t control the troops, then the officers need to be replaced or the mission called off entirely.