If we lose in
“Commanders have also ordered troops to hold off attacking militants in some situations where civilians are at risk”.
If you can think of a statement of more use to irregular forces that have no concept of the Laws of Armed Conflict, I’d like to hear it.
'Mr de Hoop Scheffer said Gen Dan McNeill, the commander of the Nato force in Afghanistan, Isaf, had also instructed troops to delay attacks on Taleban fighters if civilians are at risk.
"We realise that, if we cannot neutralise our enemy today without harming civilians, our enemy will give us the opportunity tomorrow," he added,
"If that means going after a Taleban not on Wednesday but on Thursday, we will get him then."'
I could go on and on about this, but I’ll content myself with just saying that if this is permitted to stand as NATO’s official position, we will inevitably lose in Afghanistan, and the opposition will manage to claim PR points on us every time we accidentally kill the civilians that they were hiding behind.
This leads me to the UN announcement that they want peacekeepers for
“UN resolution number 1769 will allow peacekeeping troops to use force for self-defence, to allow humanitarian workers to move freely and to protect civilians under attack.
However, they won't be able to seize and dispose of illegal arms.
A threat of future sanctions against
The resolution authorizes up to 19,555 military personnel and 6,432 civilian police in what is being called a "hybrid" force.”
As with pretty much everything the UN has been responsible for, this will be an expensive waste of time. Probably not an issue, as
No comments:
Post a Comment