[danielvf]

McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest.

An example from someone I know: Multiple helicopters are searching for a piece of enemy equipment hidden in the mountains. They find it, miles from the nearest anything in a rocky open mountain. The helicopters then spend six hours in pair shifts circling it, while the authorization to shoot at it works it's way up to Washington DC and back down again, with multiple calls coming in to "confirm there are no civilians in the area". All to destroy something worth like $200.

Airstrikes and artillery use were cut way back, and subject to crazy delays and process. This reduced how far out units could push, since support was far delayed.

Army staff even proposed a medal for "Courageous Restraint", for going above and beyond not shooting even when threatened and allow by the rules of engagement.

It was deeply unpopular with the boots on the ground. And civilian deaths actually went up. From an academic paper:

"The restrictions on the application of firepower protected the Taliban as well. This was likely a contributing factor in the dramatic overall increase in civilian deaths during the year that courageous restraint was implemented given that the large majority of civilian deaths recorded were attributed to actions initiated by the Taliban."

[colpabar]

100% of these problems could have been avoided if we just didn't invade afghanistan.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

That's a political question, not a warfighting question and it doesn't help the soldiers on the ground fighting the war. The fact is that they are there, now what can they do about it?

[shuntress]

Ok but it's kind of complicated.

[aa-jv]

>McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest.

Please cite a source. Everything I have read from him indicates he was more concerned with the perception that civilians were being intentionally targetted, and it is also specious to argue that he attempted to reduce civilian casualties during a period when Obama intentionally changed the definition of "male enemy combatants" to ensure that any males in the target area - any at all - would be counted as combatants, not civilians - regardless of whether they were actually aggressive.

This was a highly duplicitous act that has done more harm for American interests than good.

[danielvf]

Sure, here's one source:

https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/44/27133/Limiting-...

This paper is very in favor of paying the cost on reducing civilian casualties, but even so quotes things like:

"They were on target and began taking fire from a two-story compound. One of the Rangers was seriously wounded. The Platoon maneuvered and suppressed the target but based on the thickness of the walls were unable to neutralize the threat. They fired 40mm, m320 rounds, m240l, and multiple m3 Carl Gustaf rounds without any success. They then requested permission to utilize a Hellfire (air to ground missile) from a support Apache (attack helicopter), and were denied. They were told to withdraw and return to base. These types of missions were the hardest to explain to the guys who were risking all and feeling that they weren't always supported based on the need to prevent the strategic negative."

[aa-jv]

>>McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths.

Unfortunately, manifest whitepapers about 'honor' notwithstanding, McCrystal did absolutely nothing to effectively reduce civilian casualties - beyond whitewashing the scene, that is.

This is demonstrated in the actual statistics of civilian murder that have occurred since his command. It has not reduced tempo, one bit:

http://airwars.org/

[danielvf]

As I said, McCrystal intentions were to reduce civilian casualties; he took drastic actions to reduce civilian casualties; and yet the overall number of civilian deaths from all causes went up.

You can see that he was taking actions by just looking at things like the number of close air support weapon releases per month during his one year stint as commander. After taking command, the number of weapon releases went to one half that of the previous year. And once he was relived of command, they went back up again. The number of weapons releases per close air support sortie went from around 33% to less than 15%.

McCrystal made major changes to operational procedures - as an example the following rule:

"Prior to the use of fires, the commander approving the strike must determine that no civilians are present. If unable to assess the risk of civilian presence, fires are prohibited...".

That's far beyond a rule of "if you don't see any civilians", instead going to the level of forbidding strikes when unable to verify that there are no civilians around.

And that's not to mention the creation of whole bureaucracies poking into every corner of operations and focused on this.

Regardless of the actual outcome, McCrystal took many major, concrete, costly, and unpopular actions to attempt to reduce civilian casualties.

That some or many of those changes didn't stick afterwards, doesn't mean that his primary objective was whitewashing, rather than actual change.

[aa-jv]

Did civilians casualties go down?

No. They went up.

It therefore doesn't matter one iota what the war criminals responsible for that murder, have to say about it. No amount of flowery 'brave' language is going to bring those kids back from out under the rubble.

Stop defending known war criminals. McCrystal belongs in chains in The Hague, as does Obama. They both worked too damned hard to justify their murder of civilians to the rest of the civilized world.

[danielvf]

While McCrystal was in command, US caused Afghani civilian casualties went quickly down from what they were and stayed down while he was in command.

However the Taliban had been killing around 400% of the number of civilians that the ISAF was. Reduced ISAF force projection and increased Taliban activity resulted in the number of civilians killed by the Taliban going up. Thus the overall number of civilians killed during those 11 months went up. But it went up because the Taliban were killing more, not because the US was.

Another way of looking at it, if airstrikes and artillery fire were the primary drivers of US caused civilian deaths, then reducing the number of times those were used by 50% would obviously cause a noticeable reduction in US caused civilian deaths.

Anyway, it appears that we are at an impasse, and both believe that the other cannot see the obvious facts about McCrystal either doing nothing, or doing a lot to reduce civilian casualties.

Have a good day, and may there be joy in it.