In a revealing article published today (October 20, 2010) in the Washington Examiner, Sara A. Carter, National Security Correspondent reports that “Troops Chafe at Restrictive Rules of Engagement” and reported talks with the Taliban. 

As reported earlier, frontline troops in Afghanistan have not been entirely pleased (read “pissed off”) at  current Rules of Engagement which govern military action by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.    As readers of SFTT are aware, retired General McChrystal, then commander of military forces in Afghanistan, radically modified the Rules of Engagement to reduce civilian casualties.   In a celebrated interview with 60 minutes in September 2009, General McCrystal described the new Rules of Engagement as a way to earn the trust and respect of the local populace.

Needless to say, General McCrystal’s apparent eagerness to place the safety of Aghan civilians in front of the troops that he was commanding was not well received by troops on the ground and their families back home.  When General Petreaus assumed command, he claimed that the safety of U.S. troops was paramount and that McCrystal’s Rules of Engagement would be revised to suit the new circumstances. 

According to Ms. Carter’s article in the Washington Examiner, not much seems to have changed and several frontline troops are venting their frustration at the current Rules of Engagement and the widely reported accomodation given to the Taliban to negotiate a settlement with current Afgan government.

Found below are excerpts from Ms. Carter’s article:

• “If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.
• “I don’t think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we’re going through,” said Spc. Matthew “Silver” Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. “I’m sick of people trying to cover up what’s really going on over here. They won’t let us do our job. I don’t care if they try to kick me out for what I’m saying — war is war and this is no war. I don’t know what this is.”
• “If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless,” said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan. “Everyone dies for their own reasons but it’s sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we’re not going to see through.” Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.

SFTT Analysis:  Critical game-changing top-level strategic and operational decisions and actions are taking place in Afghanistan, and it appears, at least in Zabul Province, that some troopers are not being kept informed, nor being provided the purpose behind their current mission.

Maybe we have to wait for more Wikipedia leaks to let the American public and the troops who so galantly defend our liberties (and those of the Afghan people) what the real mission is.   Maybe it’s just a simple case of the Pentagon playing a game of blind man’s bluff with the hope that the Taliban will fold.  Unfortunately, there is no reason why our troops are obliged to sit at the table with a playing hand that has largely been compromised by the current Rules of Engagment.  Does anyone really believe that the Taliban seem willing to negotiate because U.S. troops have been playing by “Peace Corps” Rules of Engagement?