Petraeus Prepared to 'Modify Rules of Engagement' in Afghanistan

1 year ago

Print Text Size

Since General David Petraeus was abruptly appointed to take over the War in Afghanistan on Wednesday, speculation has swirled around how his approach to the increasingly dire conflict would differ from that of his predecessor, disgraced former commander General Stanley McChrystal. Today, we have an answer.

An anonymous military source "close to Petraeus" says that "one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy," reports Fox News.

If correct, the revelation goes against Beltway consensus, as many bloggers and reporters and even military personnel themselves expected that there would be little tactical difference in the way the two generals conducted the war, especially given the fact that, up until this week, Petraeus was in charge of U.S. Central Command, and was therefore McChrystal's boss.

President Obama himself sought to dispel any notions there would be a dramatic shift in strategy in a press conference announcing the leadership switch on Wednesday.

"Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," The President said. "General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place."

The White House has not yet commented on the reports, but a change in the Afghanistan rules of engagement would certainly be embraced by many soldiers, who feel they have been limited by regulations on when they can return fire, who they can detain, for how long, and where they can patrol, according to independent military publication Stars and Stripes. Just last weekend, Washington Post columnist George F. Will received an email from a noncommissioned officer (NCO), explaining the practical (negative) affect the rules have on ground fighting.

Filed Under: Surge Desk

Tagged: afghanistan, Afghanistan war, change, gen. david petraeus, general david petraeus, general stanley mcchrystal, mcchrystal, mcchrystal resignation, mcchrystal resigns, petraeus, rules of engagement, war in afghanistan

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

Sign in »

3 Comments

Filter by:

xleaver61

Pertaining to Afghanistan, why is it we do not bomb the poppy fields because the fields are the place of funding their ( terrorists ) war against us? Afterwards, on a humanitarian note, teach the Afgans to farm food instead of poppies.
I do not for the life of me understand this colateral damage stuff that is being spouted. In WW1 and WW11 we fought a war to WIN. If we aren't in it to WIN, we are losing our men and women's precious blood for nothing. A BIG question: Do the terrorists call it colateral damage when they blow up our vehicles with our people dying, and others crying out for help because of lost limbs, etc. Do they call it colateral damage when they kidnap and behead people? The rules of engagement should be let's get in there and WIN and come home to protect our homefront! Thank you for listening to someone who has had family in wars from the first WW to Vietnam.

June 25 2010 at 4:07 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down Reply

theherd1969

As a US Army veteran who saw more than my share of combat during the Vietnam War [as an Infantryman] I will clearly state this: I never liked or had much respect for Gen. McChrystal. In my book, "ANY GENERAL" who orders his troops to battle against the enemy using "Politcally Correct"-"Rules of "NON"-Engagement," and DENIAL of IMMEDIATE Artillery, Helicopter Gunship, and/or AF Fighter Support when they're locked in fierce battle is, in my opinion, NOT FIT COMMAND/LEAD TROOPS! If Gen. Petraeus does not lift these restrictions, he too will be a disgrace.

June 25 2010 at 2:36 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down Reply

nflamingo

Shift in strategy? Does it mean more troops will be in danger or will it be safer for them? What is this war really about? Wars in the middle east have gone on forever and will continue whether we have troops there or not. As far as protecting the United States from terrorism, we have them here now and is Homeland Security doing anything about it? Yes, some have been stopped, but how many will succeed?

June 25 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down Reply

PD TOPIC PAGES

Middle East - Congress
Budget - War / Military
Economy - 2012 President