Oct
8
Report: US/British Soldiers Asked Not to Fire on Taliban at Night So They Don’t Disturb Sleepy Time for the Locals
Filed Under PC, Politics, War | 18 Comments
I’ve read the reports and have been told by members of the military that the rules of engagement are nuts, which is why this wouldn’t surprise me in the least:
Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show “courageous constraint” by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs.
The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.
This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs.
The reason given was that “the sound of shooting ‘might wake up and upset the locals.’”
Over 2,000 of our finest have died there and thousands more have made life-altering sacrifices, and some of these can probably be attributed to orders from on high to not interrupt beauty sleep for nearby residents? Maddening.
Flashback to April: New rule of engagement says night raids won’t stop, but will be limited and controlled by the Afghans:
Comments
18 Responses to “Report: US/British Soldiers Asked Not to Fire on Taliban at Night So They Don’t Disturb Sleepy Time for the Locals”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

By a strange coincidence I just finished reading the chapter of Donald Rumsfeld's memoir titled "Law in a Time of War". In it he described the many legal challenges, both from within and without our country, that have cropped up in recent years and the dangerous restrictions they place on our military. He calls it "lawfare". I think it's an appropriate term.
The Israeli`s new-ish missile defense system, "Iron Dome", exemplifies the proper ROE (singular "rule"); it tracks in-coming missiles from their launch point and returns favor without regard for the nature of that starting point, be it open field, school, truck or mosque. It works great.
WE should have ONE Rule of Engagement; you fire on us, we take your ass out with overwhelming force. Done, YOU suffer the consequences of your actions against us; regardless of where you are at the time; RIGHT THEN – RIGHT THERE !!
We shouldn`t worry about them hating us, they seem not to need a reason. They will hate us, they will fear us, but they will respect us. We won`t mess with them UNTIL they mess with us. The Marine saying will apply; NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORSE ENEMY !!
Snipers with silencers, targeting the IED itself. If it blows up and takes out the Taliban, job done, rules followed.
And I was about to post the question: "And the IED's won't wake up the locals when the IED's go boom?"
Their launch point and returns favor without regard for the nature of that starting point, be it open field.
The many legal challenges, both from within and without our country, that have cropped up in recent years and the dangerous restrictions they place on our military. He calls it "lawfare". I think it's an appropriate term.
Thousands more have made life-altering sacrifices, and some of these can probably be attributed to orders from on high to not interrupt beauty sleep for nearby residents? Maddening.
That have cropped up in recent years and the dangerous restrictions they place on our military. He calls it "lawfare". I think it's an appropriate term.
In the grand pattern of things you get a B- with regard to effort. Where exactly you actually misplaced everybody was first on the particulars. As people say, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be much more correct right here.
It he described the many legal challenges, both from within and without our country, that have cropped up in recent years and the dangerous restrictions they place on our military. He calls it "lawfare". I think it's an appropriate term.
A comprehensively detailed and attention grabbing review that you wrote in this article. I am really convinced the way you look. The way you describe the whole thing is simple and understandable.
The many legal challenges, both from within and without our country, that have cropped up in recent years and the dangerous restrictions they place on our military. He calls it "lawfare". I think it's an appropriate term.
The death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories.
Your content is excellent but with images and videos, this site could definitely be one of the best in its niche. Fantastic blog!cheap custom essays
You have caught the detail here just right which makes for a refreshing change.
I seem your informative thought, again visit your site thanks for the sharing.. Article Writing Tips
U.S. military chiefs ordered troops to exercise 'courageous constraint' and even warned them they could be charged with murder if they shot any Taliban without permission from above.reveals how they were told not to shoot or use mortars for illumination when they came across Taliban soldiers in an area full of hidden explosive devices..
Thanks a lot for sharing the nice info in this website. I had really like it very much for using the nice services in this blog. Thanks a lot for sharing the nice info in this blog.