Afghan Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has issued a new “Tactical Directive” aimed at reining in U.S. and NATO night raids on Afghan homes, two days after the command acknowledged the accidental killing of five innocent civilians on February 12 during a bungled special operations night raid.
McChrystal’s rising frustration with the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO troops was evident in a virtual town hall meeting with troops last month where, referring to checkpoint shootings, he said: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”
In the February issue of an ISAF publication, titled COIN Common Sense, McChrystal penned a short piece expressing concern over escalation of force shootings, that typically occur at checkpoints or from ground convoys, and said that both the rules of engagement and warning shots policy are under review.
Shortly after he assumed command, McChrystal issued a directive on counterinsurgency best practices that emphasized treating Afghans with dignity and respect and being judicious in the use of force, particularly air and artillery strikes. His efforts to restrain coalition troop behavior in a foreign land included issuing a directive on driving in Afghanistan without antagonizing the local populace.
McChrystal writes that nearly every Afghan he talks to single night raids out as their single greatest irritant. The new Tactical Directive on Night Raids, posted on the Central Command web site, says that Afghan men will naturally try to defend their hearth and home when heavily armed foreign troops kick in the door in the dead of night.
“He has been conditioned to respond aggressively in defense of his home and his guests whenever he perceives his home or honor is threatened. In a similar situation, most of us would do the same. This reaction is compounded when our forces invade his home at night, particularly when women are present. Instinctive responses to defend his home and family are sometimes interpreted as insurgent acts, with tragic results.”
The directive urges troops to consider alternatives to a night raid on Afghan homes and urges prior notification of Afghan government and military officials, and “local elders,” before a raid. Afghan security forces should be included in all night raids, it says, and “should be the first force seen and the first voices heard by the occupants of any compound entered.”
Searches of Afghan homes are primarily to be conducted by Afghan security forces and carried out with dignity, including the searches of females by females. Only portions of the classified directive were made public.
– Greg
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I understand why we need to put strict limits on night raids, and I agree fully with what is in place. But night ops are a key strong point for our forces, the enemy can't see in the dark, we can. In day time it's any ones game. We got to be careful we don't tie our hands too tight, cause if we do the enemy is going to walk all over us.
I agree. This isn't entirely out of line for a COIN strategy, but, at the same time, we need to make sure we don't totally empty out the toolbox.
Huynh Van Trong would agree that it’s essential for the Americans to carefully explain all their covert operations to the local government and military officials in advance. After all, if the US military hadn’t told the chief of the RVN Joint General Staff about their most important covert operations, who briefed the RVN president and his most trusted aides, like himself, how would the NVA have been able to arrange an appropriate greeting?
Yes, there's a risk of tipping people off – depending on what 'prior to commencement' is defined as being in the unreleased bits – but ultimately, if there's no-one you are prepared to trust in the ANSF and local government, then what's the point?
So we're going to alert "local elders", who I'm sure are all fine and upstanding citizens, before carrying out operations.
When do we start emailing the Taliban prior to bombing their position? You know, to avoid unnecessary casualties.
Seems to me like a slight ploy to get out of Afghanistan.
Look at the lack of definition of progress problem.
Then realise that by telling the enemy we are coming they run away before we get there. This ultimately looks good cause the number of engagements will drop. Eventually you can prove to the Afghan goverment that they themselves can control the "few" insurgents that are left as a result of the new tactics.
Then we move out of Afghanistan, with the belief that the new tactics work. We apply the new tactics to all conflicts. People view America as a very weak people. People take advantage of America again.
Here's something I learned in the 82nd Airborne Division: If it don't need killin', don't kill it. Too much paperwork to fill out. Every innocent civilian casualty creates a new litter of "terrorists" or "Freedom Fighters" (depending on your point-of-view).
This is absurd. We are once again tying up our own capabilities for political convenience!
"Afghan men will naturally try to defend their hearth and home when heavily armed foreign troops kick in the door in the dead of night."
No Sh*t!
So will innocent American civilians when they are mistakenly served at 0400 with no-knock search warrants on the wrong address… but that hasn't slowed American law enforcement's fascination with theatrical door-kicking, either. Somebody should get canned EVERY time a night raid is executed using bad intel.
I suppose the next strategy is spreading the word of "night raids" and nailing the Taliban who come out waiting in ambush. But someday we need to trust the Afghans, be they elders, police and army. Can't wait for the day the ANA can do this stuff on their own.