The tally kept by icasualties.org includes all U.S. and allied troops killed in Afghanistan, whether by hostile fire, traffic accident or other noncombat circumstance. It does not include soldiers who may have died from their wounds after returning home, nor the deaths of troops in neighboring countries, such as Pakistan.
The independent website says 102 coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan in June, by far the highest total since the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda began.
It's partly seasonal. There are always more encounters in the summer months than in the winter. But it's more because there are more NATO troops (especially U.S. forces) in Afghanistan now than at any time since 2001, and because they are on the offensive in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. It may in part be because of rules of engagement that stress avoiding civilian casualties. (That is the view of some soldiers on the ground.)
The new ISAF commander Gen. David Petraeus told NATO allies on Thursday that he was aware of concerns among field commanders that processes were "too bureaucratic." While the rules would not be changed, he said he would look at their application because he had "a moral imperative to bring all force to bear when our troops are in a tough position." This implies quicker access to air strikes, for example.
"There is no intent to change rules of engagement. It is to look very hard at how the rules in the tactical directives are implemented and to ensure that there is an even implementation across all units, instead of perhaps some unevenness that has crept in," Petraeus said.
The general also warned that the Taliban insurgency was "industrial strength," and the BBC reports that a spokesman for the group has again dismissed the prospect of negotiations.
Responding to questions put by an intermediary, the spokesman said, "We do not want to talk to anyone – not to [President Hamid] Karzai, nor to any foreigners – till the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan.
"We are certain that we are winning. Why should we talk if we have the upper hand, and the foreign troops are considering withdrawal, and there are differences in the ranks of our enemies?"
U.S. officials have recently downgraded al Qaeda's potential to do harm in Afghanistan, with CIA director Leon Panetta saying there may be as few as 50-100 al Qaeda fighters there (though there are likely substantially more in Pakistan).
Wherever they are, al Qaeda has not given up on the propaganda front, launching a glossy online magazine in English aimed at recruiting a new generation to jihad. The magazine – called "Inspire" – did not go smoothly as only three pages of what was billed as a 67-page magazine appeared online. A fourth page was unsuccessfully posted on websites and showed nothing but garbled images.
A table of contents listed an article called "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." The magazine also promised to have an article written by fugitive American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Speaking of whom, Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, would not say whether al-Awlaki is on a U.S. targeting list in remarks Wednesday at the Aspen Security Forum.
But he said all elements of U.S. national power would be employed to target those plotting to kill U.S. citizens. And U.S. officials argue that Awlaki is an operational figure rather than just a mentor.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
http://www.englishtips-self-taught.blogspot.com
If it wasn't for the stupid media, this magazine wouldn't be a big deal. And no, it's no joke.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
In an interview with NPR about the Rules Of Engagement, Tom Bowman, observed Marines forced to cease engaging insurgents planting a roadside bomb, due to the ROE.
"...we were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb... They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. There was another combat outpost not too far away. The problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gun and the guys planting the bomb. So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machines guns and the helicopters to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug – and that's become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes a part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw this jug into a haystack."
With the arrival of the helicopter gunship the insurgents departed unharmed, as the Marines no longer had the permission to engage the now unharmed enemy.
Now this is as absurd as Rumsfeld trying to fight and control Iraq with the small amount of forces we initially used there. If you are going to fight a war, FIGHT! Yes, civilians die in a war, but so do our soldiers. I watched this morning a video shot by a British soldier wearing a camera on his helmet as a buddy was shot in the face. This was of course, horrible footage to see and it was "brought to you live" by our ridiculous Rules of Engagement. Where was the air cover, the gunships to cover the battlefield? They were not present!
What were the rules of engagement in Dresden, during WW2? Did anyone cringe amongst the allies at the many thousands of civilians killed in the firebombing. NO, they applauded as this was a fight to the death with Nazi Germany. When the Israelis last fought Hezbollah, the Iranian supported terrorists in Lebanon, the end result was a de facto loss of the engagement by Israel. I say de-facto as it was essentially a draw. Now the Israeli army does not have a history of battles ending in a draw. However this battle did, which is why I refer to it as a "de facto loss", as they were fighting the war for the TV cameras and their rules of engagement were in effect and trying to mitigate any harm to civilians. Well, when these terrorists stop hiding among the civilians, civilians will be safe.
I am not a proponent of war, but if we are going to wage war in our national interests, and they best be good ones, then FIGHT the damn war and do your best to protect civilians from harm, but in no way should the best of us, fighting for us, be put in any more harm’s way then is necessary due to the unrealistic Rules of Engagement.
Wake up Obama, this policy is killing our men in uniform unnecessarily. Yes, they know they risk harm when entering battle, but do you know you risk extra and unnecessary harm to them with these rules?
Please people learn about how horrible it was under the Taliban:
You absolutely MUST see this.