Stop Publishing Our Military Strategies!
With a hat tip to Ed at Hot Air, we find out that U.S. forces in Afghanistan will soon stop attacking Taliban elements in urban and suburban areas where civilian casualties are more likely.
KABUL — The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.
The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.
While I’m a veteran myself, I won’t pretend to be enough of an expert on battle tactics to question the decisions of our commanders in the field. Personally, I tend to agree with Ed in that we’re likely ceding some ground to the people we’re trying to defeat, but I also understand their concern over “winning the battle but losing the war” if civilian deaths jeopardize the overall mission. But that’s not my main problem with this story.
Why is this in the Associated Press running this story at all? I’m 100% behind openness in government, particularly here at home, but there are some things that we really don’t need to know, at least in real time. And our battle strategies in the middle of a war certainly fall into that category. We can find out about these things in full later on. Also, the military can brief our elected representatives on such things in private and let them handle our interests in the matter. We don’t need to send press releases to the Taliban to let them know how to plan their next assault.
A large portion of the civilians in Afghanistan – particularly in the mountain areas well away from the urban centers – are living only a few steps above a hunter gatherer society. Vast areas have no electricity, to say nothing of phones, radio, television and the internet. But the Taliban does indeed have access to information. They run their own web sites, they have satellite phones… word gets around.
They’ll figure it out soon enough, I’m sure, but why broadcast the play before the ball is snapped? This will only embolden them to attack and cause mayhem if they know they can safely hole up in somebody’s house. Freedom of the press is wonderful, but running stories like this is criminally stupid.
12 Responses to “Stop Publishing Our Military Strategies!”
Have considered the possibility that this is article is nothing but pure propaganda, made to make the General Public in the US and other Western Countries believe that the US military cares about civilian lives while it goes about it's business as it always has?
Just a cheap way to reduce criticism & get some good press…
Your implication that the military goes out of it's way to blow up civilians or doesn't care about collateral damage is insulting to the entire country. You should be ashamed, DQ.
I
A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting [revised]
US bomb blunder kills 30 at Afghan wedding
US warplanes 'bomb Afghan wedding party'
Air strike kills civilians in Afghanistan
U.S. Admits Civilians Died in Afghan Raids
Amazing the amount of civilians we keep on killing, our concern for the well-being of Afghan civilians should be obvious to anyone who cares to notice.
BTW, I am not implying that we don't care about civilian collateral damage, I am saying it. I am not insulting the country, I am just observing a fact, John Q. Public couldn't find Afghanistan on a map for a thousand dollars, has no idea who lives there, what language they speak or what their ethnicity is and could not give a shit.
This is being published because the US Military is revealing it publicly.
They're not trying to hide it.
They certainly would like the citizens of Afghanistan to know they're trying to reduce civilian casualties.
It's well-known that the number of civilian casualties there has not been helpful for us.
This is actually a hopeful sign that a more functional military strategy may be implemented.
Jazz said:
“Your implication that the military goes out of it's way to blow up civilians or doesn't care about collateral damage is insulting to the entire country. You should be ashamed, DQ.”
DQ never said the military went out of it's way to blow up civilians or that they don't care about collateral damage. In any event, it doesn't matter if they “care” or not, they aren't doing enough to minimize Afghani civilian deaths.
Whether this latest announcement is propaganda or not is yet to be seen. If it is, it certainly wouldn't be the first time the military lied, so there is no need to get all defensive.
Another possibility; the information was “leaked” as a “trial balloon” to see what the public and congressional reaction will be to such a move. They could be testing to see if Ed Morrisey and Jazz Shaw would go along with the strategy <g>.
What do you expect when the terrorists blend with the civilian population? No, magic is not possible.
Going back to Jazz' original post, I agree with George. If the AP found leaks inside the military or worse got access to classified documents, then, yeah, very debatable to publish them. But it sounds like they are just reporting a press release from the military itself.
Apparently right, pacatrue. The AP release via Yahoo, linked to in Morrisey's post says (first paragraph):
KABUL – The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.
Perhaps Jazz intended to criticize the commander, rather than AP, who was just doing its job of reporting what “an official said.”
And you all wonder why the folks on the right think folks on the left HATE the military….that first comment says it all…
LL
LadyL, speaking for myself, not “the left,” I don't hate the military at all. Just the opposite. I'm outraged those in the military were sacrificed for a war of choice. Over 1 million Iraqis have died and more Americans than died on 9/11. There were no WMD, no link to Al Qaeda, no militant Muslim fanatics or Al Qaeda in Iraq. They had some of the best schools in the Middle East, women could attend them, girls went to school, literacy was high, employment was high, clean water flowed from the taps, the sewers, electricity and oil production all worked. No sharia law, women could drive and work, Iraqis congregated in cafes with no fear of being blown up or shot.
Our former president and his neocon goons chose to end all that, throwing our military, which we on the left love, into a disastrous quagmire. Your adherence to a GOP talking point is sad, as it is you and your so-called conservative friends who empowered those neocon criminals to sacrifice both civilians and the military you claim to love, for nothing.
Hate the sin not the sinner…
I don't hate the military, just the policies they are being sent to pursue. Pointless, stupid, idiotic short term policies that cost us a fortune and that usually end up blowing up in our face. I have also noticed that the larger our military becomes, the likelier we are to use it, when the hammer is the only tool in the tool box, all problems end up looking like nails.
When is the last time the US Military was actually involved in “Just War”?
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
So which of the following are we fighting for in Afghanistan? The defense of our homes? or the Bill of Rights?