Myths About Afghanistan
Victor Davis Hanson on whether Afghanistan is really the "graveyard of empires ..."
Michelle Malkin informs us of the New York Post story of an opportunity to kill a significant number of Taliban.  Two mistakes were made in this sad episode. As the Post reported about losing this opportunity:
U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.
The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.
“We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture,” one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.Â
The first mistake is that the rules of engagement prohibited killing the enemy. I don’t care whether it is a Mosque, a cemetary, someone’s house, a school, or someone’s bath tub. If the enemy is there, he should be killed. If the officers are afraid to craft such ROE, I will be happy to assist them. All they have to do it call me.
The second mistake is that the senior officer didn’t override the ridiculous rules of engagement and order the killing of the Taliban. This is simply unacceptable, and points to officers who will not make hard decisions because of careerism. I have addressed this careerism before in my post Patriotism, Big Flags and Military Regression:
To be frank, for those who have their career as the premier concern, they should just step aside and save their reports the trouble of cleaning up their mess and suffering the consequences of their careerism.
There is no reason that these Taliban should not be dead; not ROE, and not the officers present and their lack of willingness to make hard decisions. As it stands, these Taliban are alive to injure or kill NATO troops, and the officers who are responsible still have careers. They shouldn’t.
Note: Original edited for typographical error.
On September 13, 2006 at 6:03 pm, Mike said:
I’ll be posting on this myself, as soon as I calm down a little bit. No telling what I might write if I try to blog when I’m this pissed off about a story!
On September 14, 2006 at 2:14 am, Pat said:
So, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, Commanding General of Central Command, who is in charge of the Middle East, has established rules of engagement which prevented the U.S. Army from the easy July air attack on approximately 200 Taliban soldiers drawn up in ranks at a funeral in a cemetery in Afghanistan. Well let us reflect for a moment. The General is an American of Lebanese background who speaks Arabic and would seem perfect for the job. In line with the old tradition that if you fight America, we can appoint American Generals who speak your language, understand your culture, and will crush you! In John Abizaid’s case, this has not, to say the least, happened!
Consider for a moment, the same situation with General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, an American of German extraction. In 1942, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard “The Beast� Heydrich, head of the Sicherheitsdienst and acting “Protector� of Czechoslovakia, was assassinated by allied agents and, after the usual Nazi atrocities, the Germans subsequently held an elaborate funeral for the Obergrupppenfuhrer. Did General Eisenhower, out of concern for German sensibilities, order the great U.S. Army Air Corp not to attack German military funerals? Do pigs fly?
It is time for John Abizaid to be assigned to a command within his level of ability. Enough is enough! John Abizaid has clearly been promoted well beyond his level of competency. Not too shocking, as it has happened many times before, and will again. Gen. Abizaid may feel that things were simpler and more basic in the days of WW II. No General, I was there, and they were not!
Pat West
Toronto