Bernard's criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.
Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine's U.S. senators, Bernard condemned "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in."
It may be that the rules were not properly followed in that battle and that fire support should have been supplied. Certainly, where appropriate, firepower is a useful and necessary tool to defeat insurgents.
It may be that the rules need to be adjusted to account for Taliban adaptation and errors in drafting the rules. Nothing can be static in what we do since even a correct policy can become the wrong policy six months--or even a day--later.
It may even be that nothing changed in our ROE would have saved that one Marine on that day. Good men and women die in war. That's a constant.
But in the big picture, the rules--however they evolve to account for experience in practice--are absolutely the right thing to do to win the war:
Still, short-term losses like this are necessary in a counter-insurgency. We aim to win the war--not all of the battles. We need leaders and troops well trained and disciplined enough to understand the trade off we need to make to win the war.
This doesn't mean that we can't learn from losses like this to adjust our rules for using firepower or adapt our tactics to counter the enemy's exploitation of our rules
of engagement.
But it is frustrating. And deadly for our troops. I can only hope that in the long run their sacrifice saves others who won't be shot at by an Afghan who isn't made angry by too much firepower.
We'd expect a Marine to understand why sacrificing their life to charge a bunker is necessary to win. Winning a war isn't about compiling the best kill ratio in battle--ask the Germans about their experience from 1939 to 1945 if you doubt me.
But in the long run, firepower restraint in a counter-insurgency will give us a better kill ratio and victory. There will be fewer insurgents driven to fight us because we killed their family member with a bomb just not needed to win that battle. Winning the war is what matters, in the end.
I can't possibly tell this grieving father how to mourn his loss (any more than I could hate Cindy Sheehan for her actions). What happened on that particular day to that unit and that young Marine may have been a mistake for any number of reasons.
But the bigger picture is valid despite his pain and his loss. There will be other Marines and soldiers who come home alive from that war because that particular Marine died in that battle on that day. Just as fellow Marines would live because one died destroying a bunker raking their platoon with fire.
