Jun
22
2009
|
Suffocation vs. Killing |
|
|
|
Written by JD Johannes
|
|
Monday, 22 June 2009 |
"New US Battle Rule: No Fighting Near Afghan Homes."
At first blush it may sound like the rule is to retreat. I'll save final judgement until I see the full order from the General McChrystal. I'm wagering that it will have plenty of wiggle room for commander discretion.
But the key point of the change in the use of force is to move away from killing to suffocation.
As Marine General Mark Gurganus told me, "you can't kill your way out of an insurgency."
But you can suffocate an insurgency by denying its ability to operate. You suffocate the insurgent by conducting detailed census data collection missions, ID card programs, gated communities and check points.
Not very sexy stuff, but very effective. And being effective is the goal.
Afghanistan, like Iraq, the culture has a strong revenge component. The Afghan Pashtoonwali, or Way of the Pathans, is even stronger than the Arab Blood Debt.
When American forces engage the Taliban, who may be members of the local clan or tribe, and kill the Talibs along with a few civilians, the clan will seek revenge.
The cycle then never ends.
The response to contact must then be weighed--short term vs. long term.
A patrol could lay down a base of fire in 45 or 90 degrees toward the incoming contact, blasting and killing anything in the way, or it could move slower, be more manuever oriented, close in on the gunmen and be precise in return fire.
The burden for Platoon and Company Commanders will be immense as they have to weigh and balance their decisions.
It will be important for the command to educate Commanders, NCOs and Soldiers as to why precise engagement or even disegagement may be better than traditionally accepted actions.
The decision rule for officers will like that of a doctor--first do no harm to civilians. And then weigh the short term--killing bad dudes, keeping soldiers alive--against the long term--not creating more Talibs looking to settle a blood debt.
Of course none of this will remove the basic rule of engagement that you always have to defend yourself and civilians from a threat and that often it involves killing a bad guy.
But the larger strategy, moving away from killing to suffocation worked in Iraq and throughout history in dealing with insurgencies.
I've seen a lot of combat and a lot of gunfights . When I read the full order I'll be able to give an informed opinion on whether it is idiotic or enlightened.
|
|
