American Forces Were Ineffective in the Middle East because of Our Restricting Rules of Engagement

Thank you to Con for creating those rules and establishing a better outline of what this debate will consist of! Good luck to Con, and lets get to it!Case:I'll start of by stating what the definition of the Rules of Engagement are:Rules of Engagement: a directive issued by a military authority specifying the circumstances and LIMITATIONS under which forces will engage in and combat the enemy.I'll be arguing that the Rules of Engagement, specific to Afghanistan and the conflicts the U.S was involved in in the Middle East, was one of the main reasons why the American forces were ineffective. The Rules of Engagement in the Middle East that were enforced on the U.S forces say that an American soldier may only engage with a target, or request an airstrike, if they're completely sure they're armed. This rule has resulted in deined access to Airstrikes in cases where one was needed, like the case with former Army Captain William Swenson, who was engaged in a firefight with over 150 Taliban fighters, and requested an airstrike, but was denied for hours, allowing the Taliban fighters to surround him and attack his position. [1] William Swenson having to ask a J.A.G (military attourney), who's not in harms way of the firefight, but yet has the authority to deny airstrikes to people who need it, is completely backwards. A politcian shoudln't be granted the ability to deny someone who's in a firefight the right to an airstrike that could possibly save many lives, and stop a firefight all together. After the firefight in Kunar Province that Swenson was in, the same one where he was denied an airstrike for 5 hours, 5 U.S forces were killed, as well as the Afghan National Army losing 8 lives. The main reason why they were denied airstrikes for hours was because of the fact that the Taliban that were located inside a house were using women as a safe haven to protect themselves from any type of airstrike, which brings me to my next point. [1]One of the biggest issues with the Rules of Engagement in the Middle East is the fact that they're more beneficial to terrorists than they are to U.S and allied forces. The Taliban understand that, and take advantage of, the U.S's Rules of Engagement that are built on the foundation of cutting down on civilian lives lost in the form of being completely sure that the area that the airstrike will take place in is actually full of enemies, and is clear of civillians. This foundation, a foundation that the Taliban know of, creates second guessing throughout the chain of command that an officer or soldier has to communicate with in order to get one airstrike. This second guessing takes time, lots of time, time that results in the deaths of American soldiers, as well as Allied soldiers. Anything that binds U.S and allies forces hands in conflict can be easily taken advantage of. Ryan Zinke, Seal Team 6 member and Commander, puts this into scope best when he says, "The first people who are going to look at it (Rules of Engagement) and review it are the enemies we're trying to fight. It's going to be a document that can be easily used against us." He goes on to mention that we are "losing our ability to fight oversees." [2] The last factor to consider when looking at these Rules is that U.S forces and allied forces are unable to enter Afghan homes "except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb."(Obama) [1] What this rule does is take away the ability to search for terrorirists where they're expected to be dwelling. Obama passing this rule PROTECTS terrorists more than it does U.S and allied troops. Rules catering to a terrorist's ability to kill and hide from American forces effectively is one of the sole reasons why we're ineffective in the Middle-East. Thank you, that is my case! Pardon any errors I made, my mind is a bit shot from A.P finals. Good luck to Con!