Pat Dollard

Tweet

Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have eased a rule covering the use of force that has been a source of discontent among American troops, according to military officials.

As a result of findings during a review commissioned by Gen. David Petraeus, it has been made clear that troops are allowed to request airstrikes and artillary strikes against insurgents hiding in dilapidated buildings or other abandoned structures. Commanders conducting the review said they found some junior commanders had misinterpreted the rules to mean they weren’t allowed to fire on such places.

The review comes as Gen. Petraeus, who in July took over as head of the allied force in Afghanistan, looks to improve the U.S.’s broader counterinsurgency strategy—aimed at protecting the population and shoring up support for the Afghan country’s government—and demonstrate results on a tight timeline. Other reviews of the strategy are to take place at the end of this year, and defense officials are keen to find ways to demonstrate their progress ahead of that.

The clarification on the use of force is part of a broader effort by Gen. Petraeus to review the tactical directive limiting airstrikes and artillery strikes that was issued in July 2009 by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was recently dismissed as head of the allied force. That directive was a radical departure from the U.S. military’s traditional doctrine of using overwhelming force to defeat its enemies.

Gen. Petraeus, who has spoken often about how civilian deaths undermine a counterinsurgency effort, is expected to largely keep in place limits on the use of airstrikes. Two senior military officials said Gen. Petraeus would largely keep intact Gen. McChrystal’s previous guidance on the use of force—and will emphasize his support for Gen. McChrystal’s efforts to limit civilian casualties.

Last week, Gen. Petraeus issued new counterinsurgency guidelines that largely continue the practices laid out by Gen. McChrystal. The guidance tells troops to position their outposts near population centers in order to better protect the population, to be careful that money paid out for projects or contracts doesn’t go to the insurgency, and to confront corrupt officials.

Gen. McChrystal’s guidelines on the use of force in Afghanistan have been controversial.

Many Defense Department officials say the rules have succeeded in limiting civilian casualties and have helped improve the Afghan government and population’s view of the allied military effort. Military service members, by contrast, often complain the rules are too restrictive and have at times put troops in danger. Some current and former military officials say the limits on airstrikes have stripped the U.S. of its greatest technological advantage over the Taliban.

On Sunday, the Netherlands became the first North Atlantic Treaty Organization country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, ending a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home, the Associated Press reported. Separately, in southern Afghanistan, two international service members were killed in fighting, and a minibus carrying civilians struck a roadside bomb, killing six, the AP said.

Also Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates repeated his view that next summer isn’t a deadline for a large-scale withdrawal from Afghanistan. “We need to re-emphasize the message that we are not leaving Afghanistan in July of 2011—we are beginning a transition process and a thinning of our ranks,” Mr. Gates said on “This Week” on ABC News. “The pace will depend on conditions on the ground.”

Meanwhile, senior officials at the International Security and Assistance Force, the umbrella organization for coalition forces in Afghanistan, cautioned that Gen. Petraeus has yet to finalize the new directive on air and artillery strikes that will apply to all ISAF troops. But other military officials said the most important change will be to get rid of misinterpretations that have grown up around the rules, such as the overly broad definition of what kinds of structures couldn’t be targeted.

As part of the current review, lower-level commanders have been examining their practices to ensure they are in keeping with the intent of Gen. McChrystal’s tactical directive but not going beyond it, according to military officials.

In eastern Afghanistan, senior U.S. commanders determined that some troops were under the impression that they weren’t allowed to fire on abandoned homes. However, the directive, military officials said, was designed to stop troops from striking residential compounds and structures where civilians might live.

“Soldiers may have perceived that they were prevented from firing at insurgents using these dilapidated former dwellings, when in fact they were not,” a senior military official said.

Commanders have now been told that a structure where civilians might live is defined as a building with four walls and a roof, and shouldn’t be targeted. By contrast, troops can target a structure with three walls and no roof.

At his confirmation hearing in June, Gen. Petraeussuggested that the problem with the tactical directive stemmed from how lower-level commanders implemented it. He said the military needed to ensure that subordinate leaders didn’t make the guidance “more bureaucratic or more restrictive than necessary,” especially when troops were in danger.

Defense officials said the confusion surrounding the rule on structures is typical of the military, where junior commanders often add requirements to an original order. The officials compared it to a morning drill scheduled to start at 7 a.m. To ensure no one is late, each echelon below subtracts a half hour from the start time—only to have the soldiers show up at 5 a.m. and wait for two hours.

Another military official noted the original directive was a “shock to the system”: Because it was a big shift from the usual doctrine of using overwhelming force, some officers struggled with how to get their troops to follow it. “Some commanders may have overcompensated,” this official said.