While the Obama administration is trying to bring the US back in civilisation by signing executive orders on the end of torture and the application of Geneva Conventions, some US generals seem not to have undertood that change has happened. US General Bantz J. Craddock, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) has issued orders to kill suspected opium producers at will.
Battling Afghan Drug Dealers: NATO High Commander Issues Illegitimate Order to Kill - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
In a classified document, which SPIEGEL has obtained, NATO's top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a "guidance" providing NATO troops with the authority "to attack directly drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan."
According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops.It is "no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,"
Craddock writes.
[emphasis mine]
Fortunately, NATO commanders have so far refused to follow the order:
The directive was sent on Jan. 5 to Egon Ramms, the German leader at NATO Command in Brunssum, Netherlands, which is currently in charge of the NATO ISAF mission, as well as David McKiernan, the commander of the ISAF peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. Neither want to follow it. Both consider the order to be illegitimate and believe it violates both ISAF rules of engagement and international law, the "Law of Armed Conflict."
A classified letter issued by McKiernan's Kabul office in response claims that Craddock is trying to create a "new category" in the rules of engagement for dealing with opposing forces that would "seriously undermine the commitment ISAF has made to the Afghan people and the international community ... to restrain our use of force and avoid civilian casualties to the greatest degree predictable."
...
German 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.
In a country where the relations between the US troops and the local population are already at a very low level following the dramatic increase in the number of civilian casualties due to US air strikes, this order could make things even worse:
If Craddock's order were to go into effect, it would lead to the addition of thousands of Afghans to the description of so-called "legitimate military targets" and could also land them on so-called targeting lists.
Like his former boss, General Craddock doesn't like people who stand up to him in the name of international law (or the US Constitution).
The US general, who is considered a loyal Bush man and fears that he could be replaced by the new US president, has already made his intention known internally that he would like to relieve any commander who doesn't want to follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia of his duties.
And this comes on top of already highly questionable (criminal?) rules of engagement:
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 for the Afghanistan deployment 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."
[emphasis mine]
In the framework of Obama's plans to increase the number of US (and allied if they accept...) troops in Afghanistan, this is a major problem.