I just read Petraeus advisor predicts changes in Afghan strategy in yesterday's LA Times and I think the author, Doyle McManus, misinterpreted David Kilcullen.
Here is the passage that I am referring to.
"The rules have been interpreted too restrictively," Kilcullen said. "They've been too legalistic — and also too apologetic." That's a significant statement from a man who has condemned U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan for causing civilian casualties, and whose latest book, "Counterinsurgency," lists "respect for noncombatants" as a fundamental principle of irregular warfare.
It's tough to tell in the selective quotation of Kilcullen, but I think the author got it wrong. McManus points out that this is "a significant statement." Why? Apparently McManus seems to think this is a deviation of sorts by Kilcullen. He highlights the contrast of this statement with earlier ones by pointing out that Kilcullen has
"condemned U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan for causing civilian casualties," and his assertion that
"respect for noncombatants" is
"a fundamental principle of irregular warfare."
I'm pretty sure that the quoted passage is not a contrast to those statements. I'm pretty sure it was unrelated. I am fairly certain that Kilcullen's views are unchanged and that he sees no conflict between his statement to McManus and his earlier quoted statements. Kilcullen is pointing out what many of us have recognized for quite a while. The ROE are not the problem. The inability of layers of command to interpret those ROE into something coherent on the ground and/or the inability of troops on the ground to work within the interpretation of the ROE - that's the problem. Commanders are interpreting the ROE too restrictively and too incoherently. Many Soldiers prefer to rely upon their ability to bring overwhelming firepower to bear, rather than the more difficult and necessary work of using greater restraint and employing organic firepower with greater precision - and then they bitch about it when they're required to do the more difficult task.
Example, see this passage from the infamous
Rolling Stone article...
"The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. 'Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on,' says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. 'I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing.'"
The rest of the media doesn't seem to get this distinction. Until the media understands it, they will remain unable to convey this to the public. And until that happens, you'll have a public largely made up of people who express anger at our leaders for "tying our troops' hands."
One of the reasons that the administration has seen fit to use organizations such as CNAS to market a kinder, gentler way of war is that the American public is poorly informed about what contemporary operations require. There is nothing kind or gentle about shooting a guy in the face. That is what our troops need to be doing: shooting people in the face (or in the neck or chest, if you're concerned about identifying the deceased). They also need to avoid wasting people who are not combatants. But the public thinks that COIN is about not shooting bad guys and about "winning hearts and minds" through short-term projects. Once again, the media fails in its task to inform.
Focused exclusively on getting insider scoops and tabloid scandals, the media manages to get the basics wrong day after day after day. And we wonder why public support wanes. We wonder why the President can't put together a coherent strategy without offending half of our population. Do you people understand, yet, why I despise the so-called journalism profession? What a bunch of assclowns.