The current ROE (Rules of Engagement) in Afghanistan are really Rules of Embrittlement. The only possible result is to weaken, possibly terminally, the offensive capability of the greatest military in the history of the world.
The real story with regard to General Stanley McChrystal is the ridiculous rules of engagement that are currently in force in Afghanistan. The soldiers are totally pissed that they are expected to expose themselves to enemy fire, but can’t even fire back if there is any risk of civilian casualties. They blamed McChrystal for that. The ONLY criticism of McChrystal from the troops, that I have seen, is in regard to the rules of engagement.
Almost immediately there are rumors that a: Petraeus is going to reverse those rules, followed closesly by b: no he is not. Odds are pretty high that those brilliants rules of engagement came from the White House, not McChrystal and that when Obama talks about keeping the same strategy that is exactly what he has in mind:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/
If these rules of engagement remain in place, Petraeus is going to have serious problems. If they are changed, it will be hard to argue that this was not a change in strategy. Interesting thought: McChrystal has been getting phone calls and letters from the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan blaming him because of the rules of engagement. That would be hard to take, even if the rules were your own idea. It would be nearly impossible to take if those rules were jammed down your throat.
I can speak from experience that sometimes when I was an Executive Officer for ABM I was ordered to do things with which I had strongly disagreed. While it was perfectly acceptable for me to express my disagreement, once the decision was made, my duty was to implement the decision with the same enthusiasm as if it were my own decision. In order words I couldn’t say something like: “ I disagree with this, but these are orders. “ That was never an option. If I felt I couldn’t fully support the rules, I would have been expected to resign.
The same is true of McChrystal. He may have strongly disagreed with the rules of engagement. That seems likely since he was a hard-nosed take no prisoners, unless you want to torture them, kind of guy in Iraq. But, it would have been his duty to implement the rules, enthusiastically and never give even a hint that he disagreed with the decision.
The real question is: “ what is he going to do now? “ Anyone losing a job suffers some stress. Being fired from one of the post powerful positions in the world, in a publicly humiliating fashion, has got to be overpowering. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
Here is what to watch. If Petraeus is successful in getting the rules of engagement changed, that may push McChrystal over the edge. He would not likely be thrilled at being blamed for those rules of engagement unless they really were his idea. On the other hand, if the rules of engagement are not changed, Petraeus is going to have a major moral problem with the troops. That will quickly tell the troops that it wasn’t McChrystal’s policy, it was Obama’s policy. At least some of them are going to become vocal about it. Seeing your buddies die unnecessarily because of idiotic decisions like the current rules of engagement tends to bring out hate and discontent.
TDM