Burgers und Rules of Engagement

Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um ein Blog aus der Freitag-Community

<<

McChrystal recently had Burger King and other US fast-food joints removed from large US bases, arguing that such morale builders were non-essential. The move was deeply unpopular among troops. Large bases under Petraeus in Iraq had as many amenities for soldiers as could be reasonably provided.

Another change that troops would like to see is a relaxing of rules of engagement (ROE) that have made it difficult to receive permission to shoot back, particularly the use of mortars and other indirect fire on the Taliban.

The restrictions are rooted in the belief that avoiding civilian casualties does more to win the fight in the long run. Combat troops hate them, since it puts them at greater risk of death, and they’ve been backed up by a number of retired officers.

>>

www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0624/General-Petraeus-and-General-McChrystal-same-policy-different-face

<<

MODEL TARGETING CHECK-LIST

Target Description:
Grid Ref:

1. Do you have authority under ROE / Orders to conduct attack?

If yes proceed to 2. If no DO NOT ATTACK

2. Is the objective on a No Strike / Restricted Target List?

If no proceed to 3. If yes DO NOT ATTACK

3. Does the target make an effective contribution to enemy military action?

If yes proceed to 4. If no DO NOT ATTACK

4. Will its destruction or neutralisation, in current circumstances, offer a definite military advantage?

If yes proceed to 5. If no DO NOT ATTACK

5. Is the attack expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians,
damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof (i.e. collateral damage)?

If yes proceed to 6. If no proceed to 11.

6. Do your targeting directive and ROE permit collateral damage?

If yes proceed to 7. If no DO NOT ATTACK

7. Is there an alternative military target available with the same military advantage, with less risk of collateral damage?

If no proceed to 8. If yes return to 1 for new target

8. Have all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a
view to avoiding, and in any event to minimising, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects been taken?

If yes proceed to 9. If no, do so, and then reassess 8.

9. Where circumstances permit, has an effective advance warning been given of attacks that may affect the civilian population?

If yes proceed to 10. If no, issue warning before proceeding to 10.

10. Is the attack expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians,
damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated?

If yes DO NOT ATTACK. If no proceed to step 11.

11. ATTACK PERMITTED - BUT CONTINUE TO MONITOR. IF CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE - DUTY TO REASSESS ATTACK.

>>

www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/23/world/23troops_337-395/23troops_337-span-popup.jpg

S. a. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10161136.stm

17:24 24.06.2010
Dieser Beitrag gibt die Meinung des Autors wieder, nicht notwendigerweise die der Redaktion des Freitag.
Geschrieben von

Fritz Teich

Schlesinger hat mich wieder an Reinhold Niebuhr erinnert.
Schreiber 0 Leser 0
Fritz Teich

Kommentare