Normally only Americans protest when their allies refuse to contribute troops to Iraq or Afghanistan or impose crippling restrictions on those troops. (A German commando unit in Afghanistan is, for instance, forbidden from using lethal force.)
But many allied soldiers seethe privately that they are not allowed to do their job even in a good cause. Some of that seething has broken into public view in Australia where two army officers have published articles bemoaning the restrictions imposed on infantry units. As summed up by the Sydney Morning Herald:
Low-risk missions assigned to the infantry in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan have left soldiers “ashamed of wearing their Australian uniform” and made them a laughing stock among allies, say two senior officers who have spoken out against the Government and their military chiefs.
The officers, writing separately in the Australian Army Journal, say giving all potentially offensive actions to Australia’s special forces, including the SAS, has weakened morale and prompted many soldiers to question the future of the infantry.
The Times of London notes that Australia’s policies have had their intended effect by minimizing politically damaging casualties: “No Australian troops have been killed in combat in Iraq since the invasion but five, mainly special forces commandos, have been killed in Afghanistan.”
These rules of engagement were instituted by former Prime Minister John Howard, because he feared that suffering too many casualties would destroy political support for an unpopular mission. That’s a reasonable concern. Dutch and Canadian troops, among others, have in fact seen worrisome declines in support on the home front as a result of the losses they’ve taken in Afghanistan. But at some point America’s allies have to ask themselves what is the point of sending troops if they’re not allowed to fight? That not only undermines the rationale for the troop deployment in the first place but also undermines the morale of soldiers who are not allowed to soldier.
