New restrictions for bombing missions:
The new American commander in Afghanistan said he would sharply restrict the use of airstrikes here, in an effort to reduce the civilian deaths that he said were undermining the American-led mission.
In interviews over the past few days, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the use of airstrikes during firefights would in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun.
Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces, he said, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas — the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover.
“Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly,” General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. “We can lose this fight.”
“When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.”
The statements by General McChrystal signaled the latest tightening of the rules for using airstrikes, which, while considered indispensable for protecting troops, have killed hundreds of civilians.
This is a tough balancing act they are trying to do here, but McChrystal is exactly right (as was Obama during the campaign)- killing hundreds of civilians is not helping the cause at all. The real question is will this matter, because unless I am misremembering, a good portion of the most recent civilian casualties came from missions that were violating the already existing standards. Perhaps new emphasis and clearer standards will make the difference.
AnotherBruce
A couple of minutes ago, I stared off into the middle distance for about 15 seconds without a thought in my head. Question, was I “going Galt”?
matoko_chan
haha!
Sully has to eat his sox or somethin’….right?
McChrystal was a good choice.
The rightwing fundies get it wrong everytime……eventually everyone above a certain IQ gradient, Powell, Petraeus, etc….votes for Obama.
Comrade Stuck
This a tough stance, but necessary for winning hearts and minds, which in these kinds of wars also means winning period. But I doubt it will be well received by field commanders and their troops under fire.
Indylib
This would seem to confirm that McKiernan was fired in a large part over the airstrikes and civilian death count .
Brick Oven Bill
The Constitution of Afghanistan, as approved by President Bush.
Ch. 1. Art. 1
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Ch. 1, Art. 2
The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.*
Ch. 1, Art. 3
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
Somebody please explain to me what we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden would have written the same Constitution.
* This alludes to ‘dhimmi’ status where ‘People of the Book’ (Jews and Christians) are allowed to be subjugated and taxed in exchange for ‘protection’. Athiests, Diests, Gaians, etc. are subject to death.
bhagamu
Better late then never I suppose. It kind of sucks to see news about civilian death counts because it makes ’em seem like just statistics. 13 civilians killed might be a family, a pair of fiances, a kid just graduating from elementary school, etc. etc.
joe from Lowell
I knew the sacking of the old theater commander, and the appointment of a Special Forces general, a couple days after another civilian-killing airstrike wasn’t coincidental.
Good news for everyone, except those who used the deaths of civilians to push a political agenda.
Comrade Stuck
THIS
alludes to BoB being an idiot.
Brick Oven Bill
I do not know why that is in bold.
demimondian
@Brick Oven Bill: It’s really quite simple, BOB — we hope to be able to point at bigoted imbeciles like you and remind the world that we can deal with cretins like you peacefully, and so we know that they can, too.
joe from Lowell
Wow. You really are an ignoramus, aren’t you?
Osama bin Laden blows up Shiite Muslim mosques, but he’d write a constitution guaranteeing Christians, Jews, and Hindus the right to practice their religions?
Uh huh.
demimondian
@joe from Lowell: Well, it’s not good news for those who already dead — but it’s at least good news for the living.
demimondian
@joe from Lowell: Actually, that’s not so far from the truth. In bin Laden’s eyes, Jews and Christians are People of the Book (although not Hindus), and are therefore monotheists with a right to worship. Shia are heretics, and far worse than any others.
Brick Oven Bill
Limited tolerance for Christians and Jews is absolutely Islamic, they are given status as ‘People of the Book’:
9:11 (!) But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.
But Christians and Jews are to be taxed and subjugated:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
joe from Lowell
demimondian,
What, exactly, makes you think bin Laden’s interpretation of Islamic scripture is the same as yours?
Jews and Christians aren’t allowed to worship in Saudi Arabia, but we’re to believe that bin Laden’s tolerance for other religions would be greater than that of a government he describes as corrupt and westernized?
Interrobang
Keep in mind, the tax on the non-Islamic people of the book was not much different than, say, a sumptuary tax (which was levied on Jews, for instance, in England, when Jews were permitted to reside in England). Also keep in mind, Islamic Spain was one of the best places in which to be Jewish in the whole Middle Ages. So I’m kind of not getting what all the yelling is about. This isn’t even news; it’s not even particularly remarkable. In the context of Islam and its social history, it’s absolutely ordinary.
Most nominally secular Christian-majority western countries also do something similar — every tax exemption given to a religious organisation is a levy on unbelievers of all sorts.
grendelkhan
@demimondian: Seconded. Better late than never, and I remain skeptical, but this is, without qualifiers, excellent news. I hope it’s borne out in the news from that region from here on out.
Are you referring to the thread of legend here?
srv
Well, the policy in Afghanistan has changed again. First half hearted COIN, then Counter-terror, and now whatever McChrystal thinks he can do without enough troops and without taking the war to the folks embedded with the locals. Which is nothing.
So I’d guess some realists got to the admin (Pat Lang has been taking a lot of posting siestas lately) and we’re just going to sit on Afghanistan for awhile and see if Pakistan cools off.
Mike G
The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.
Change ‘Islam’ to ‘Christianity’ and it’s pretty much the Repig vision for America. Except for the toleration of other religions part.
fliegr
As one of the the guys who’ll be executing this policy, albeit via remote control from Nevada, I couldn’t agree more with the intent.