New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal

The problem with an insurgency is that it is hard to separate civilians from insurgents.  Having said that, the more they rely on sorting things out on the ground as opposed to air and artillery support, it will cut down the so-called collateral damage. 

To prevent friendly casualties, there was a heavy reliance on air power.  So with this new tactical directive be prepared to see more friendly casualties.

It's nice that they're addressing the issue; hopefully it will be put into practice with the results they envision.

Difficult when you have 20 year olds at the trigger.  But yes I hope so.

No one has mentioned that this will cost Canadians troops their lives. Some will be killed in the attempt to go beyond what was considered historically necessary to prevent civilian casualties, and the Taliban will use this to make sure that there are civilians shielding them whenever necessary.

Sorry, but I am not sure that this is such a good policy.

I am reading, but I don't quite get all the links here in the chain of command, and, if I understand better, these rules are for the US troops and you have to approve them in Canada.

Spam filter, sshhppaamm filter.

McChrystal commands ISAF.  He has the authority to issue those directives.  Having said that Canadian troops are under operational command, which means they can refer back to National authority if they disagree with a directive.

For the most part, if an order does not conflict with Canadian Government rules they will follow it.

So, we, the US, are asking you to put yourself further in harm's way.

America  tried to win "hearts and minds" in Vietnam . . . it didn't work! And if America tried to win 'hearts and minds" in WWII, half of us probably wouldn't be here and the rest of us would be goose-stepping and saluting posters of Hitler. All philosophical differences aside . . . can we agree that committing American troops to lay down their lives on the battlefield is heart breaking business? It seems to me that the Obama administration and the US military brass  is more concerned  with the "hearts and minds" of  Afghan citizens than it is with the "hearts and minds" of  American citizens that serve in the US military. There has been a push, throughout the years, within certain ideological circles, to turn America's armed forces into policemen and social workers. Apparently, the "push" has now come to fruition through the efforts and  good graces of the Obama administration. Why anyone--unless they're suicidal or have no regard for their loved ones--would serve in today's American armed forces is beyond my comprehension. given the lack of support that they are subjected to from their commander in chief and his minions.

Thank you for your comments Rory. Your thoughts are well founded.  As a former soldier, I can only say that there is a youthful enthusiasm that you can do something for your country, and see some of the world you woudn't see otherwise.

17 and 18 year olds, straight out of high school do not do a critical analysis of what they may be getting into. 

In any case, the Taliban are well known for being able to adapt.  They don't wear a uniform, so how do you differentiate a combatant from a civilian.

The problem in Afghanistan for NATO troops is not the battle with the Taliban.  They can fight them from a stand off position by use of tanks, heavy machine guns, etc as long as they stay out of RPG range.  The problem is car bombs, Improvised Explosive Devices and suicide bombers.

This new tactical directive restricts the use of artillery and air power as I understand it.  Winning hearts and minds, which you analyzed correctly as not working in Vietnam requires:

The trust of the local populace,

removal of fear of retribubtion by the Taliban, which can move freely among the populace,

providing security

and somehow making people's life better through reconstruction.

recreating a safe and secure environment for UN and NGO support.

We did win the hearts and minds, though, in Iraq, as the elders of the Sunni tribes came over from Al Qada to fight with us.

Can you say human shields?

Wow, never realized the old rules of engagement allow one to fire at civilians. Shuck's of course to many civilians have been shot or killed.  Now the Americans want to emphasis that they have not intent to kill innocent civilians and those that get killed are by complete accident. In fact its always been a case of accidents and the fact that if one uses smart weaponry you can't wipe out the fact that innocent civilians will be killed.

There is every possibility UN forces life's will be put at risk when the terrorist use human shields, terrorist will take any advantage. However time will show up such problems and I expect we will not see the end to innocent lives being lost. War is War unfortunately the realities are horrifying.   

Absolutely correct Babel.  It was never ok to kill civilians.  Rules of Engagement issued by national governments and screened by legal experts have become very complicated if you go over them paragraph by paragraph.  Soldiers are issued cards now that show them the steps for escalating force.

As an example some operations maybe classified soft or hard knock depending on the target.  Having said that rules of engagement are no longer a sentence.  They are complicated.

This has been one of the most mature discussions we have had here of something controversial at its root. Thanks to all, but especially to our friend from Alberta.