Defense Secretary James Mattis appeared to suggest that relaxing the rules of engagement, those insane restrictions on lethality downwards, is a key ingredient in the secret sauce. However, we have already had this experience – at the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rules of engagement were tightened after it became painfully clear that the more civilians we killed on the battlefield, the more insurgent ranks would rise — which, of course, undermines the long-term goal of ensuring that Iraq and Afghanistan do not become breeding grounds for anti-American extremist groups. That is why we entered this war in the first place. MOUNTAIN: From the Marines` perspective, the Afghans really seemed to be insurgents. So what did they do? I wonder how different it really is from what has been considered before. Since there must be a threat to American lives before a particular Taliban target can be attacked, it is hard to imagine that pre-planned rules of engagement would have prevented an attack. But perhaps the idea here is that the new wording extends the defense umbrella to Afghan forces, which in most cases should be those in immediate danger, even if American lives are not directly threatened (cf. the administration`s early Article II theories on Iraq and ISIS). In short, the idea may be largely to pave the way for U.S. air support for Afghan ground operations against the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents. Much of the article seems to agree with this understanding.
The question remains whether status-based targeting will be an option for al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. I have not seen it publicly stated that the military`s rules of engagement in Afghanistan currently provide for status-based targets, although I suspect that is the case. Nothing in the article suggests that this would change in 2015, and in fact, the emphasis on moving from a status-based approach to an idea of threat-based targets for Taliban fighters in 2015 implies that the rules for al-Qaeda will be different (i.e., they will remain status-based). Then we have a history that highlights the difficulty of fighting a war in the midst of a civilian population. This is the story of the U.S. Marines targeting Afghans, Afghans who looked like they were planting a bomb. The Marines had to decide whether to pull the trigger. Their decision speaks volumes about the rules of war against insurgents in Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal (U.S. Commander, Afghanistan): I`ve been here for a long time now, since 9/11, and there have been a huge number of cases where I`ve seen activity that looks exactly like one-way on the surface of what has been seen, looks completely compelling. And then, afterwards, what you saw was incomplete.
In fact, we find civilian casualties who are unarmed civilians. As a November 21 New York Times article reported, President Obama recently decided to expand the circumstances under which the U.S. military could use force in Afghanistan in 2015. What is the exact nature of this expansion, as far as we can tell from this story? Or to put it another way: what parameters will be integrated into the rules of engagement of US forces in Afghanistan in 2015? U.S. forces are no longer bound by the obligation to engage with enemy forces in Afghanistan before opening fire, thanks to a rule of engagement change orchestrated by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Two final thoughts: First, remember that none of this indicates what could be done by the CIA or otherwise under the color of Title 50. Second, note that adopting a “self-defence” or “threatening” approach to justifying violence against Taliban forces may reduce the need to insist that there is a state of armed conflict for these objectives, or, for that matter, that there must be an AUMF to support such operations. BOWMAN: You know, they hear these complaints. And I had a few minutes this week with their commander-in-chief, General McChrystal, and I told him the same story, Renée, I told it to you. And I asked him about the rules of engagement. Here`s what he had to say: In particular, Mattis pointed out that U.S.
forces are now allowed to deploy air force without the intended targets having to be “close” to the U.S.