A comparison on how the British and the US military deals with the Afghan restraint policy

[NJmaverick]

Here is an It's interesting how the two militaries deal with and think about the new Afghan policies that are set put a large emphasis on protecting Afghan civilians and their property.

Here is an article from the US military perpective.

It was titled- Troops Feel Growing Rage in Afghanistan

It went on to talk about:

"It causes a lot of frustration. My men want revenge, that is only natural,"

and

"But I keep telling them that the rules are the rules for a reason. If we simply go crazy and start shooting at everything, in the long run we will lose this war because we will lose the support of the population."

and

"They know we can't shoot them if they don't carry guns or without positive identification. They are fighting us at another level now"

So the US military seems to resent the new rules and are following them some what reluctantly and with more than a bit of anger and frustration.

http://www.military.com/news/article/troops-feel-growing-anger-in-afghanistan.html?col=1186032325324

Then there is the British reaction to this.

Here is a BBC article discussing the British troops and their reaction to the new rules.

The article is entitled- Restraint the new tactic for UK troops in Afghanistan

It goes on to talk about:

"courageous restraint"

and

"It takes training and discipline not to fire back if you are fired upon,"

and

"The natural thing for soldiers is to give heaps back if they come under fire, but now we look to manoeuvre instead if we can, because it is crucial not to jeopardise a single civilian life."

It seems like the British military has embraced the concept and has a much better understanding of what is being accomplished. They are looking at the policy in a manner that shouldn't generate near the anger and frustration. I can't help but feel the British troops with their positive attitude and clear understanding are going to be the ones that have more success.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484205.stm