On Thursday the U.K. Telegraph posted an article about a totally ridiculous restriction put on British soldiers in Afghanistan. The British soldiers are fighting under the rules of engagement laid out by NATO.
The article reports:
"British soldiers who spot Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs are told not to shoot them because they do not pose an immediate threat, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
"They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties."
This information was disclosed during the investigation into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
The only good news in this article comes from a statement made by a British officer who recently served in Afghanistan:
"He said: "A British soldier manning a checkpoint at night might watch a man digging a hole for an IED 100 metres away and would not try to shoot at him. It's a ludicrous situation.
""There has to be an immediate threat to life and that's a hard thing to prove. An IED does not count as an immediate threat.
""The Americans are different - their Rules of Engagement are pretty liberal. If they even suspect someone of laying a bomb, they can shoot them.""
I understand that the accidental killing of civilians by NATO forces is seen as a victory for the Taliban, but this is ridiculous. Allowing a terrorist to place an IED that later kills NATO soldiers is also a victory for the Taliban. At least the American soldiers are allowed to shoot the terrorists!
Leave a comment