Posted on Nov 25, 2014
New, expanded rules for U.S. combat in Afghanistan in 2015
3.89K
22
15
4
4
0
From: Navy Times
New rules for the 9,800 U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan next year will let commanders order airstrikes or night raids on Taliban forces who pose a significant threat to the Afghan government, defense officials said.
The rules came in an order recently signed by President Obama that clarified the authorities U.S. military commanders will have after the official end of the combat mission in December.
The new rules appear to signal an incremental expansion of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan next year.
Six months ago, Obama announced plans to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for 2015 and limit their primary missions to two — training and advising the Afghan military and using a small cadre of special operations troops to target al-Qaida "remnants."
With the official end of the combat mission requiring a new set of policies and legal authorities, Obama has approved the details of precisely who U.S. military commanders can target. In some cases, it may be Taliban insurgents.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Tuesday that U.S. troops would continue targeting some, though not all, Taliban militants, and may also provide field-level support for Afghan security forces.
"We won't target Taliban just merely for the sake of the fact they're Taliban and quote-unquote 'belligerents,' " Kirby said.
However, he added: "Should members of the Taliban decide to threaten American troops or specifically target or threaten our Afghan partners in a tactical situation, we're going to reserve the right to take action as needed. If they pose a threat directly to our troops or to the Afghan security forces, certainly then they become fair game at that point."
U.S. forces also may provide "enabling support" for the Afghan military, which may include airstrikes, medical evacuations or logistical aid.
"Clearly we know there is going to be some need for some enabling support," Kirby said.
Military officials emphasize there are no plans to change the troop levels that Obama committed to Afghanistan in his May announcement, which amount to 9,800 American troops in 2015 and about half that in 2016. Obama's policy will withdraw virtually all U.S. forces from Afghanistan before he leaves office in January 2017.
The decision to target some Taliban forces reflects two significant developments over the past several months — the resurgence of Islamic militants in Iraq and the new, pro-American government in Afghanistan.
Many U.S. military officials were stunned by the catastrophic collapse of several Iraqi army divisions in May and June as militants loyal to the Islamic State seized large swaths of northern Iraq, including the country's second-largest city, Mosul.
The U.S. military had given the Iraqi forces billions of dollars and many years of face-to-face training. But many of those troops simply proved unwilling to fight.
"People are having second thoughts about their confidence in the ability of host-nation militaries. It's always a risk when your strategy relies on someone else to do the fighting," said Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way.
Also influencing the American mission in Afghanistan is the election of a new president who is far more supportive of U.S. military support than his predecessor.
Ashraf Ghani was elected in September and promptly signed a deal with the U.S. to keep American troops there beyond December.
Ghani also recently lifted the ban on night raids by special operations troops, imposed by former President Hamid Karzai in 2013.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/25/new-rules-afghanistan-taliban-targets-2015/70089962/
New rules for the 9,800 U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan next year will let commanders order airstrikes or night raids on Taliban forces who pose a significant threat to the Afghan government, defense officials said.
The rules came in an order recently signed by President Obama that clarified the authorities U.S. military commanders will have after the official end of the combat mission in December.
The new rules appear to signal an incremental expansion of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan next year.
Six months ago, Obama announced plans to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for 2015 and limit their primary missions to two — training and advising the Afghan military and using a small cadre of special operations troops to target al-Qaida "remnants."
With the official end of the combat mission requiring a new set of policies and legal authorities, Obama has approved the details of precisely who U.S. military commanders can target. In some cases, it may be Taliban insurgents.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Tuesday that U.S. troops would continue targeting some, though not all, Taliban militants, and may also provide field-level support for Afghan security forces.
"We won't target Taliban just merely for the sake of the fact they're Taliban and quote-unquote 'belligerents,' " Kirby said.
However, he added: "Should members of the Taliban decide to threaten American troops or specifically target or threaten our Afghan partners in a tactical situation, we're going to reserve the right to take action as needed. If they pose a threat directly to our troops or to the Afghan security forces, certainly then they become fair game at that point."
U.S. forces also may provide "enabling support" for the Afghan military, which may include airstrikes, medical evacuations or logistical aid.
"Clearly we know there is going to be some need for some enabling support," Kirby said.
Military officials emphasize there are no plans to change the troop levels that Obama committed to Afghanistan in his May announcement, which amount to 9,800 American troops in 2015 and about half that in 2016. Obama's policy will withdraw virtually all U.S. forces from Afghanistan before he leaves office in January 2017.
The decision to target some Taliban forces reflects two significant developments over the past several months — the resurgence of Islamic militants in Iraq and the new, pro-American government in Afghanistan.
Many U.S. military officials were stunned by the catastrophic collapse of several Iraqi army divisions in May and June as militants loyal to the Islamic State seized large swaths of northern Iraq, including the country's second-largest city, Mosul.
The U.S. military had given the Iraqi forces billions of dollars and many years of face-to-face training. But many of those troops simply proved unwilling to fight.
"People are having second thoughts about their confidence in the ability of host-nation militaries. It's always a risk when your strategy relies on someone else to do the fighting," said Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way.
Also influencing the American mission in Afghanistan is the election of a new president who is far more supportive of U.S. military support than his predecessor.
Ashraf Ghani was elected in September and promptly signed a deal with the U.S. to keep American troops there beyond December.
Ghani also recently lifted the ban on night raids by special operations troops, imposed by former President Hamid Karzai in 2013.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/25/new-rules-afghanistan-taliban-targets-2015/70089962/
Combat
Rules
Taliban
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
Way to telegraph strength, capabilities and rules of engagement for anybody and everybody!
(3)
(0)
CPT Aaron Kletzing
Quote from the article -- ''At one point, he actually revealed the time of an attack prior to its occurrence,'' Lt. Mark Kitchens, a spokesman at Central Command, said yesterday morning. Lieutenant Kitchens added that Mr. Rivera had been escorted to Kuwait.
(1)
(0)
CPO Greg Frazho
If this is true, he needs to be sent out of country as quickly as humanly possible. Hello, OPSEC!!
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
My point exactly, why do we do that? It is so frustrating, we discuss OPSEC, we talk about situational awareness, and the ever changing combat environment. This should be a topic that is considered need to know only....I boggles my mind what we allow our enemies to know.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Which brings up the elephant in the room. We talk about OPSEC and we ROE, but is there a ROE for reporters. We need to pull the Carter Blanche card, they can't always get to report whatever they want. If they break the rules, like Mr. Rivera, fire them, or remove them from the country with a written reprimand from the military. I think we need to stop having double standards for our civilians and military personnel on the battlefield.
(0)
(0)
I appreciate the complexity of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, and I don't presume to have the authority to make absolute judgments. But one statement from this article that concerns me is the confusion that is getting created here around who our troops can target and why. I remember that even in Iraq back in 07-09, there were instances where we wanted to hit a target and couldn't, because the Iraqi Army was supposed to do those missions...and then they did, and failed, and that insurgent got away. I get it: my experiences are just one data point. But it is so hard for leaders on the ground to be optimally effective in the moment of lethal action when, during a night raid for example, you're not sure which enemy can be targeted and which can't.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Heather Brown
"U.S. troops would continue targeting some, though not all, Taliban militants" I am not a militarily intelligent person but this makes me even more confused!!! some but not all. I would not be as worried about this if it was them talking about us. how many more service members do we have to loose for political correctness. It makes me sick.
(1)
(0)
It's tough to read this -- it really is -- because you think for a moment about all the men and women that may find themselves back in harm's way so soon. But the military is the military and we will complete the mission we are rightly given. And this is why so few people are ever able to join the military, let alone make it and do well. This also makes me think of military families -- spouses, children, and other loved ones. My foremost feeling is Godspeed to everyone getting sent back down range. Keep your head on a swivel and complete the mission. You will all be in our thoughts and prayers.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google