Military.com

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Justin Jones, of Regimental Combat Team 7, looks for signs of enemy movement during a firefight with insurgent forces.


KABUL, Afghanistan - The commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan issued updated rules of battle Wednesday, repeating hispredecessor's curbs on use of air power and heavy weapons when civiliansare at risk but stressing the right of troops to defend themselves.


Also Wednesday, New Zealand announced it suffered its first combat death of the war during an ambush a day earlier in one of Afghanistan'smost peaceful provinces. The Taliban claimed responsibility, raisingconcern that the insurgency is spreading beyond its strongholds even asU.S. and NATO forces are ramping up the war against the insurgents inthe south.


The new guidance comes after widespread complaints from troops that rules laid down by former commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal were puttingthem in danger and handing the advantage to the Taliban.


There had been speculation that Gen. David Petraeus - who took over from McChrystal a month ago - might ease the rules. But Petraeus, likeMcChrystal, emphasized that protecting the Afghan people was the toppriority in the war.


"We must continue - indeed, redouble - our efforts to reduce the loss ofinnocent civilian life to an absolute minimum," Petraeus wrote in thedocument released by the NATO command Wednesday. Some sections were notreleased for security reasons, the command said.

McChrystal stressed the need to reduce civilian casualties as a tool for winning the war - noting that every civilian killed the crossfirecreated a legion of family members with a grudge against NATO forces andmotivation to join the Taliban.


Under this guidance, NATO forces drastically restricted the use of airstrikes, which had previously been called in without knowledge of whowas inside a building. Troops were also instructed to only fire onpeople who were actively firing on them.


Though McChrystal's directive did frustrate many Soldiers in the field, it also led to a drop in civilian deaths attributed to NATOforces.


Petraeus said nothing in the guidance was meant to hinder the right to self-defense.

"We must employ all assets to ensure our troopers' safety, keeping in mind the importance of protecting the Afghan people as we do," Petraeuswrote.


A spokesman for NATO forces said the directive will help troops understand how to balance the two.

"We also have now an absolutely clear wording and language on the necessary balance between the right of self-defense, the protection ofthe people, and the assurance of moms and dads back home that their boysand girls absolutely do have the necessary means and measures toachieve mission and success," said NATO spokesman Brig. Gen. JosefBlotz.


The new directive implied that some lower-level commanders had misinterpreted McChrystal's guidance and made rules in their areas morerestrictive than needed.


"Subordinate commanders are not authorized to further restrict this guidance without my approval," Petraeus wrote in the document.


Petraeus said the rules were not aimed at slowing the war, but were essential to victory.

"We must continue to demonstrate our resolve to the enemy," Petraeus wrote. "We will do so through our relentless pursuit of the Taliban andothers who mean Afghanistan harm, through our compassion for the Afghanpeople, and through the example we provide to our Afghan partners."

The battle to win over the civilian population is being waged on both sides. The Taliban issued a directive a little over a week ago thatcalls on their fighters to avoid killing civilians and forbids them fromseizing weapons and money.


However, the 69-page Taliban booklet also declares that people working for international forces or the Afghan government are"supporters of the infidels" and can be killed.


Also Wednesday, a presidential delegation sent to investigate civilian casualties in southern Afghanistan reported that 39 civilianswere killed and four others were injured in fighting last month inSangin district of Helmand province. According to a statement issued byPresident Hamid Karzai's office, the delegation stayed in Sangin for sixdays, interviewing local officials and relatives of the victims.


"They found out that the Taliban entered the houses of civilians andthey fired toward a joint force of Afghan and coalition troops, whoreturned fire," the statement said. "President Karzai once againemphasized that civilian casualties are not acceptable."

Earlier, the Afghan government said 52 civilians died when a NATO rocket struck the village of Rigi, one of the most violent areas of thecountry.

That report was disputed by the international coalition. NATO said investigators determined that alliance and Afghan troops came underattack about 6 miles (10 kilometers) south of the village and respondedwith helicopter-borne strikes. Coalition forces reported six insurgentskilled, including a Taliban commander.


At least 2,412 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting last year - up 14 percent from 2008, according to the United Nations. The U.N. foundthat about two-thirds of the civilian deaths were a result of actionsinitiated by the insurgents, while the percentage of civilian deathsattributed to NATO and Afghan government forces had dropped.


In the days since the release of their code of conduct, insurgents have killed 43 Afghan civilians - most in bomb explosions, NATO said.


The nearly 9-year-old war is becoming increasingly deadly. July was the deadliest month for U.S. forces with 66 troops killed, and June wasthe deadliest month for the overall NATO force with 103 killed.


The attack against the New Zealanders occurred in Bamiyan province, a central area where most of the ethnic Hazara population opposes theinsurgents. Two New Zealand soldiers and an Afghan translator werewounded, New Zealand Defense Force Chief Lt. Gen. Jerry Mateparae toldreporters in Wellington.


He said the three-vehicle patrol was attacked with a roadside bomb, rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire.


Provincial spokesman Abdul Rahman Ahmadi said the attack occurred about 5 p.m. in the Kohmard district of northern Bamiyan. Ahmadi saidthe insurgents were believed to have infiltrated from nearby Baghlanprovince, which has seen an increase in Taliban activity in recentweeks.


Insurgent activity has been spreading into areas beyond the militants' longtime bases in the south and east of the country, even asthe U.S. and its allies are rushing thousands of reinforcements to tryto turn back the Taliban. The focus of U.S. and NATO operations has beenin the ethnic Pashtun south.


You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!

Join The Patriots For America

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Either we need to fight a war AS a war and then pick up the mess, as we did with Japan and Germany, or we need to just get our troops out. This political pussy-footing is what lost Vietnam, and why Korea ended without a treaty, and it's getting our troops killed for nothing. Neither the Afghani nor the Iraqi people NOR our enemies respect our troops, and they know all they have to do is hold out 'til our troops are withdrawn and they can go back to "business as usual" and continue their assaults against the rest of the world unfettered.
  • I agree with Sandra Lee Smith. We cannot fight the enemy and our political leaders both. War, by definition, means the goal of conquering no matter what it takes. There is room for charity and benevolence, but only after the battle is won. We should not, by all means, deliberately harm civilians, but in any war there will be casualties among the homeland people. Our troops cannot, must not, be fettered with such restrictive prohibitions. If we had fought Germany and Japan like this, we would have lost the war. My respect for General Petraeus and anyone else who embraces these policies that we have fostered on our troops is nonexistent. It is sad to see the greatest nation in history be castigated and demoralized as has the United States. God help us.
  • This is political correctness at its worst! Our troops should not be hindered in any way, shape or form when they are engaged in battle. obama and his nicey, nicey attitude has made our country appear weak and has made us vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. Our troops have been made more vulnerable, also, now that nicey, nicey policies have been adopted. What a crock of bull!! I say let the troops do what needs to be done to win this war and get the heck out of there!!
  • Right now the Pentagon is blindly accepting Obama as CIC and following his orders, so there's not much chance of that; it's the CIA's drug business that's being protected there, as well as at the southern borders here, which is why those are still open. Petraeus did meet with Bilderbergers this spring, as did Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, neither of which is a good sign, for America. Congress is on board with the agenda too, which leaves no one to whom we can appeal to bring our troops home as they should be since they're NOT being allowed to fight the war there in any case!
  • It's about freaking time someone set the record straight. I don't think I could go on being this po'ed. Thanks.
  • I think community organizer, obama, is the one who ordered our military not to hurt anyone. What about our brave men and women who are in the midst of this battle? Don't they count? You can't fight a war with nicey, nicey policies!! Our troops are at a horrible disadvantage and need to be brought home. You can't win a war if you have to be "nice" to the enemy. What a crock of bull!!
    • While it is true that I do not like the situation on the ground it was, I believe Gen. Petraeus has given the green light to our guys to pull the trigger without waiting for their lawyer to get back to 'em. If it were not so, I'd want them to come home. They have gone there with Victory in mind. Don't you remember? Give them the equipment, the men, and get the heck out of the way!
      • As community organizer in chief, obama still calls the shots. Gen. Petraeus better watch his back, or, he will end up without a job, also.
        • Only the General will take it like a MAN...but he won't let his men down.
          • I like Gen. Petraeus and believe in him. The problem is he has to follow the orders of the community organizer in chief who does not have America's best interest at heart. Time will tell.
This reply was deleted.