Afghanistan ROE
Thread Starter
Recent news reports state "an Armored Column was held up by Sniper teams (Taliban sniper teams)....and one team got to within about 155 feet before opening fire on our troops."
Now I ask you.....snipers holding up an Armored Column? Bradleys and LAV's have 25mm guns....Abrams have 120mm guns. I would suggest there are ample methods of ending that threat in seconds if the ROE would allow it.
It might be a bit hard on the housing they were hiding in....but then the threat would be terminated and the advance could continue.
Now I ask you.....snipers holding up an Armored Column? Bradleys and LAV's have 25mm guns....Abrams have 120mm guns. I would suggest there are ample methods of ending that threat in seconds if the ROE would allow it.
It might be a bit hard on the housing they were hiding in....but then the threat would be terminated and the advance could continue.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben
My mistake. They were plainly enemy.
Even though our own lot said that a couple missiles veered off course and hit a bunch of folk 300 yards away. And the truck based missiles used have been stood down.
It reminds me of another Vietnam ism. 'If he's (or she's) dead and Vietnamese...they're VC'
So according to you, if anyone gets killed; 'Hey, they was probably baddies anyways'.
You know. Thats why your lot will never win a counter-insurgency campaign in your trigger-happy lives.
My mistake. They were plainly enemy.
Even though our own lot said that a couple missiles veered off course and hit a bunch of folk 300 yards away. And the truck based missiles used have been stood down.
It reminds me of another Vietnam ism. 'If he's (or she's) dead and Vietnamese...they're VC'
So according to you, if anyone gets killed; 'Hey, they was probably baddies anyways'.
You know. Thats why your lot will never win a counter-insurgency campaign in your trigger-happy lives.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So according to you, if anyone gets killed; 'Hey, they was probably baddies anyways'.
My point, which I am happy to expand upon for you, was that it is important for Afghanis to realize that having Taliban and terrorist presence among them is risky, and should become increasingly so. If they perceive the risk of being close to them is greater than the risk of standing up to them, or at least fleeing them, it will be real progress in the battle. If opposition force are thus isolated, they become much more vulnerable and the risk to uninvolved civilians diminishes.
A key point is that as the enemy operates outside Geneva combattant legality, the 'civilian' designation loses some of its meaning. They would all claim to be civilians, but they are something else.
Thats why your lot will never win a counter-insurgency campaign in your trigger-happy lives.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless.
If that post was to me, I still think we are agreeing.
I pointed out that one group of 'civilians' are very rarely guilty (as in for very short periods of time*), and hoped I did not need to spell it out in small words how that worked out in theatre, in more detail.
You will not find me saying the current ROE are the best ones (and in fact, I have been criticised for calling for stronger ones).
*the taliban only come into the 'guilty position' for short periods of time, purely because of the current ROE. I'm sure even they find our ROE a bit hard to believe, especially when compared to theirs. As I say, I am versed in the theory of this (but not the actuality of Afghanistan), after having experience of another group of baddies whom had over thirty years to absolutely perfect the tactic of exploiting Brit ROE, and even used our court system and our solicitors to beat us!
As an aside, surely the whole purpose of snipers, is that a couple of them can hold up a convoy quite easily (but of course, in the usual scenario, the enemy convoy are shooting back
)
If that post was to me, I still think we are agreeing.
I pointed out that one group of 'civilians' are very rarely guilty (as in for very short periods of time*), and hoped I did not need to spell it out in small words how that worked out in theatre, in more detail.
You will not find me saying the current ROE are the best ones (and in fact, I have been criticised for calling for stronger ones).
*the taliban only come into the 'guilty position' for short periods of time, purely because of the current ROE. I'm sure even they find our ROE a bit hard to believe, especially when compared to theirs. As I say, I am versed in the theory of this (but not the actuality of Afghanistan), after having experience of another group of baddies whom had over thirty years to absolutely perfect the tactic of exploiting Brit ROE, and even used our court system and our solicitors to beat us!
As an aside, surely the whole purpose of snipers, is that a couple of them can hold up a convoy quite easily (but of course, in the usual scenario, the enemy convoy are shooting back
)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read your post barnstormer was that you and SASless, as well as I are pretty much on the same page.
It's ironic, isn't it, that unrealistic ROE limitations are largely driven by our own internal opposition and sensitivity to press sensationalism. It has a real impact on the mission and costs our soldiers dearly. A latter day Patton, or a Bomber Harris is called for.
It's ironic, isn't it, that unrealistic ROE limitations are largely driven by our own internal opposition and sensitivity to press sensationalism. It has a real impact on the mission and costs our soldiers dearly. A latter day Patton, or a Bomber Harris is called for.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben
Iraq: 'Declare Victory- and leave'.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by winning. Time will tell, on that one.
Personally I think calling it a US victory is stretching it somewhat. I haven't EVER heard the US declare itself to have won in Iraq (except GWB on that carrier years ago!)
I see another 5 civilians were killed today in an airstrike that went wrong. Guess that makes them the enemy, right?
"but are they truly innocents?" as you put it.
How the f*ck would you know! You psychic or something?
Iraq: 'Declare Victory- and leave'.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by winning. Time will tell, on that one.
Personally I think calling it a US victory is stretching it somewhat. I haven't EVER heard the US declare itself to have won in Iraq (except GWB on that carrier years ago!)
I see another 5 civilians were killed today in an airstrike that went wrong. Guess that makes them the enemy, right?
"but are they truly innocents?" as you put it.
How the f*ck would you know! You psychic or something?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
BBF,
You wound the host to carve out a cancer do you not? What is different about this?
War is never as surgical as desired....but the UK would be speaking German and eating schnitzel if Allied Forces were using the ROE in place now for Afghanistan.
Ask the French about Caen and a few other cities that were intentionally bombed to rubble by the Allies.
You wound the host to carve out a cancer do you not? What is different about this?
War is never as surgical as desired....but the UK would be speaking German and eating schnitzel if Allied Forces were using the ROE in place now for Afghanistan.
Ask the French about Caen and a few other cities that were intentionally bombed to rubble by the Allies.
the UK would be speaking German and eating schnitzel
Choose your metaphors with care, I would venture to suggest.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's worse than 'spamspeak' and McDonalds?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grabbers
Yes thank you. Felt great as soon as I woke up!
SAS I'll tell you whats wrong. You're wounding the host ok, but encouraging the Cancer!
The whole thing in Afghanistan is a crock. We're there to 'prevent the Taliban sheltering terrorists' OK.
So are we making more terrorists? Yup.
Whats to stop AQ hiding somewhere else? Nothing.
Are we stirring the hornets nest? Yup.
To what end? We have no idea.
Are they about to give up? I don't think so, although they might if we buggered off!
Like in Iraq.
Yes thank you. Felt great as soon as I woke up!
SAS I'll tell you whats wrong. You're wounding the host ok, but encouraging the Cancer!
The whole thing in Afghanistan is a crock. We're there to 'prevent the Taliban sheltering terrorists' OK.
So are we making more terrorists? Yup.
Whats to stop AQ hiding somewhere else? Nothing.
Are we stirring the hornets nest? Yup.
To what end? We have no idea.
Are they about to give up? I don't think so, although they might if we buggered off!
Like in Iraq.
