# Defense Secretary recently made a big change to the rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.



## Kraut783 (Oct 17, 2017)

Nice!

In short, U.S. troops are now allowed to shoot first when they find Taliban insurgents or Islamic State militants.

That’s a major shift from the Obama-era rules of engagement that often required U.S. forces to “basically be in contact with that enemy” before getting authorization for airstrikes or artillery strikes, Mattis said.

MEDAL: Mattis vs Petraeus and the new Rules of Engagement


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2017)

Hasn't that been the ROE since the start though? Not sure advertising this was the best move either- the enemy would find out about it in a better way.


----------



## Dame (Oct 17, 2017)

YES! Just fucking YES!


----------



## Topkick (Oct 17, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> In short, U.S. troops are now allowed to shoot first when they find Taliban insurgents or Islamic State militants.
> 
> That’s a major shift from the Obama-era rules of engagement that often required U.S. forces to “basically be in contact with that enemy” before getting authorization for airstrikes or artillery strikes, Mattis said



Good article. What grabs my attention is that these new rules should eliminate the bullshit, career ending punishment of good men who had to make split second life or death decisions in combat.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2017)

Can't edit now but I want to clarify that I thought the "Obama-era" ROE was what I thought was in place since the start, not this new one.


----------



## trin (Oct 17, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Hasn't that been the ROE since the start though?


Don't think so.  As for advertising it, it puts our enemies on notice that when we believe we're threatened, we now shoot first and ask questions later.  What was bad was announcing the reverse a while back.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 17, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Hasn't that been the ROE since the start though? Not sure advertising this was the best move either- the enemy would find out about it in a better way.



They already have a way out of it. Stash the weapons and pick up a farming tool. But they won't get the chance now.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 17, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Hasn't that been the ROE since the start though?



No, for example the ROE in 2002 was perceived threat.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2017)

As above gents but thank you for replying.


----------



## CQB (Oct 18, 2017)

Correct me here, but didn't INTERFET have similar?


----------



## Gunz (Oct 18, 2017)

CQB said:


> Correct me here, but didn't INTERFET have similar?



Wasn't INTERFET essentially a "peacekeeping" force under a UN resolution? 



trin said:


> ..._* it puts our enemies on notice*_ that when we believe we're threatened, we now shoot first and ask questions later.  What was bad was announcing the reverse a while back.




This^^^.

Every time our leaders publicly described our restrictive engagement policies or gave the dates for our troop withdrawals from OEF, it was like handing the enemy a blueprint for victory.  

I've mentioned before that declaring the sanctity of mosques (and in my war Buddhist temples) only made them repositories for weapons, medical supplies and RPs and safe havens for our enemies.


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2017)

"AWP, slots are opening in Afghanistan. You ever thought about comi...."
(dial tone)


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 18, 2017)

Taliban is going to be quaking in their moccasins now.  ROE was the only thing holding us back from victory, should be smooth sailing from here on out.  Another 60 years or so and we'll have this thing wrapped up.


----------



## CQB (Oct 18, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Wasn't INTERFET essentially a "peacekeeping" force under a UN resolution?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The ROE were different, due to past UN inability in places like Srebrenitsa & what a small Australian medical team confronted in Rwanda.  The ROE changed over time in Timor. 

Peacekeeping in East Timor


----------



## JMonty (Oct 18, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Hasn't that been the ROE since the start though? Not sure advertising this was the best move either- the enemy would find out about it in a better way.


No, it was STRICTLY enforced to not fire unless fired upon, or if there is absolutely no doubt that your target in hostile. Especially sucks when you’re camped up in a hide with possible combatants, and you can’t do shit until you KNOW what you’re looking at. Especially from a CAS perspective, you pretty much need to get fucking ambushed before you can drop any ordnance. (We found loopholes however)


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2017)

JMonty said:


> No, it was STRICTLY enforced to not fire unless fired upon, or if there is absolutely no doubt that your target in hostile. Especially sucks when you’re camped up in a hide with possible combatants, and you can’t do shit until you KNOW what you’re looking at. Especially from a CAS perspective, you pretty much need to get fucking ambushed before you can drop any ordnance. (We found loopholes however)



I'm almost "glad" someone else posted this. I have second hand stories from JTACs w/ the 173rd in 2005. They described pack trains of mules and horses laden w/ weapons that they couldn't touch. The Sky Soldiers found ways to address the problem. I'm told Boar vs. mule is a gruesome sight.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 18, 2017)

JMonty said:


> No, it was STRICTLY enforced to not fire unless fired upon, or if there is absolutely no doubt that your target in hostile. Especially sucks when you’re camped up in a hide with possible combatants, and you can’t do shit until you KNOW what you’re looking at. Especially from a CAS perspective, you pretty much need to get fucking ambushed before you can drop any ordnance. (We found loopholes however)



Sorry, is that in reponse to that quote including my follow up? I'm a bit confused (I would have edited that post if I'd not run out of time).


----------



## CQB (Oct 19, 2017)

Getting a bit more of a long range perspective, if you consider for how long the US has been in Germany & Japan after WW2, I for one aren't relying on a quick fix here. Internationally, China has become a player north of Afghanistan so it looks to me to make geopolitical sense to stay.


----------



## JMonty (Oct 19, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Sorry, is that in reponse to that quote including my follow up? I'm a bit confused (I would have edited that post if I'd not run out of time).


Gotcha. Didn’t see your follow up. Yeah ROE’s    been like that.


----------

