‘Courageous Restraint’ Questioned
"Courageous restraint," or stringent restrictions on engaging the enemy that were implemented to cut down civilian casualties in Afghanistan, is under fire by Britain's top general there after soldiers complained against the perceived inflexibility of the protocol.
“Courageous restraint,” or stringent restrictions on engaging the enemy that were implemented to cut down civilian casualties in Afghanistan, is under fire by Britain’s top general there after soldiers complained against the perceived inflexibility of the protocol.
To put these criticisms into context, June was the deadliest month in Afghanistan for NATO troops since they arrived back in 2001, with many soldiers believing they have not been given the freedom to properly engage those they see as the enemy.–JCL
Wait, before you go…The Daily Telegraph:
Soldiers and Royal Marines told The Daily Telegraph last week that their lives were being endangered by the policy of “courageous restraint” introduced by Gen Stanley McChrystal to cut down the number of civilian casualties.
In an interview with the Telegraph, Lt Gen Sir Nick Parker said troops in more dangerous areas should be able to use “all the tools at their disposal”.
Last month was the bloodiest since Nato troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, and it is understood that soldiers will be given more flexibility in using lethal force to defend themselves after some complained they were fighting with “one hand tied behind our backs”.
“In some areas we have over-corrected and we have to absolutely make sure we bring that gently back into line,” said the Deputy Commander ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
Support Truthdig
Middle East
Amid a severe drought, Afghan scientists are asking the international community to engage with the brutal new regime.
The much-awaited US-Taliban agreement could finally end the longest U.S. war, but an end to violence is not assured.
President Trump may have surrendered to the Taliban, but as Truthdig columnist Danny Sjursen notes, that may not amount to the end of the conflict.
Militants from the Islamic State group have declared war on Afghanistan's Shiites; IS claims responsibility for Friday's attack.
After nearly two decades, America's longest-running conflict appears to be coming to an end. Even a flawed peace deal is worth celebrating.
The agreement could see the withdrawal of all American and allied forces in the next 14 months — but it could also easily unravel.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.