We are definitely shooting at our enemies more this year. This is one reason:
In his Aug. 21 speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy, President Donald Trump said he would ”lift restrictions and expand authorities” for warfighters. ...
Mattis has taken that freedom and implemented at least two changes: The removal of proximity requirements for strikes against Taliban forces, and the spreading out of U.S. and allied advisors to lower-level Afghan units.
Although our troops in Iraq and Syria were being more active in fire support, too, so it isn't that recent.
Maybe it is just me, but I always viewed rules of engagement as focused on the target and potential collateral damage around the target.
So moving more Americans who can call in fire to more Afghan units at lower levels and allowing American fire support even when an American isn't close to the strike area would increase fire support without any change in rules about whether the target can be struck.
I bring this up not to be picky but because in the past our military has said that increased fire support wasn't because we loosened rules of engagement to allow more risk of collateral damage. If you distinguish between rules of engagement (what you can strike) and rules of authorization (who and under what circumstances they can call in the strike), you embrace both concepts.
Or maybe earlier denials of changes of rules of engagement were wrong; or right at the time, but no longer apply to what we are doing now.
