Nato commanders clash on orders to kill From US General

A RUMSFELD MAN



Nato high commander forced to back down


On January 30, general Bantz John Craddock gave up. On that day, the Nato high commander retracted an order calling on troops fighting in Afghanistan with Nato's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to attack drug traffickers and facilities. Many of Craddock's comrades found the order unpalatable - it explicitly directed Nato troops to kill those involved in the drug trade even if there was no proof that they supported insurgents fighting against Nato or Afghan security forces.

General Egon Ramms, from Germany, who heads up the Nato command centre responsible for Afghanistan in Brunssum, the Netherlands, expressed his displeasure with the order as did US general David McKiernan, who heads up the Nato command in Afghanistan. Both felt that the order violated ISAF rules of engagement as well as international law.

Craddock was extremely upset by the resistance from his subordinates, insiders report. They say he even considered sending a written demand to Berlin that general Ramms be relieved of duty. In the end, though, the US general bowed to the inevitable and made the change demanded by both Ramms and McKiernan. Instead of being given a free hand against drug traffickers, Nato troops will continue to be allowed to attack only those drug traffickers with provable ties to insurgents and terror groups. The change, a Nato spokesperson said on Wednesday, means that the incident is over.

Spiegel reported on the Craddock order - and the disagreement within Nato leadership - on January 29. Since then, Nato has made every effort to play down the dispute and attempted to portray Craddock's "guidance" as little more than a proposal to be commented on by his subordinates. Such a procedure, however, is hardly common practice within the Nato chain of command. At the operational level, no orders are issued - there are only "guidances" and "directions," explains retired four-star general Dieter Stöckmann, who served as Nato deputy high commander in Mons, Belgium until 2002. Speaking from his experience, Stöckmann said "a guidance is not a recommendation. Rather it is clearly a binding order."

The contentious contents of Craddock's paper unleashed dismay throughout the alliance and across the political spectrum. "Afghan people are not chickens whom one could hunt whenever one wanted to," commented Afghan foreign minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta.

"This does not reflect the decision made by the defence ministers during their meeting in Budapest and does not represent the positions of the member states," Robert Farla, spokesman for the Dutch Embassy in Berlin says. "We hold the view that one can destroy targets that have a relationship with the Taliban, and not all drug traffickers have such a relationship." Dutch troops are stationed in the province of Uruzgan in southern Afghanistan.


But it may soon be Craddock himself in the hot seat. Already, there are those in Nato headquarters in Brussels, as well as in the alliance's military headquarters in Mons, who are speculating about "the last days of Craddock." Hardly anyone believes that the "hard-core Rumsfeld man," as some refer to him, will make it to the end of his term of service this summer. Craddock is seen as a leftover of the George W. Bush administration. It is seen as likely that his defeat in the just-ended dispute among Nato generals will speed his departure.

His successor would likely be marine general James N. Mattis, currently Supreme Allied Commander Transformation in Norfolk Virginia.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2143822.ece/Nato_high_commander_forced_to_back_down

Our Military is nothing to be proud of these days after
being infected by Rumsfeld and his minions

outdone themselves.

who enabled the massacre in East Timor that almost got Amy Goodman killed. I'm not happy about Gates although he seems not to be as insane as Rumfeld (that would be hard to achieve). Panetta will do a good job but CIA must be a horrible mess right now.

Obama has his work cut out for him.

Haunt him

Afghan villagers complain of the increase in the deaths of relatives who were mistakenly killed during military operations carried out by the Americans and their allies, such as the one carried out recently in Masamut, a village in the eastern Afghan province of Laghman. The US army announced that it had "eliminated" 32 Taliban insurgents. However, survivors claim that 13 civilians had been killed during the search for a Taliban commander. In the eyes of many Afghans the former liberators have long become ruthless occupiers.

Nato general Ramms made it perfectly clear in his answer to General Craddock that he was not prepared to deviate from the current rules of engagement for attacks, which reportedly deeply angered Craddock. The US general has already made his intention known internally that he would like to relieve any commander of his duties who doesn't want to follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia.

Back in December, central command in Florida, which is responsible for the US armed forces deployment in Afghanistan, yet again watered down provisions in the rules of engagement pertaining to the protection of civilians. According to the new rules, US forces can now bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not kill "more than 10 civilians."

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2136041.ece/Nato_commanders_clash_on_orders_to_kill

in drug running with CIA.

(because we'd be at war with EVERY Afghan faction simultaneously including the tribal forces we've recently begun to arm as well as elements of the Karzai government)

Maybe ole "B.J." was just trying to help?