The news today that two US rockets destroyed a house killing 12 Afghans' in Marjah highlights the extreme difficulty of successfully implementing the US plan to reduce civilian casualties in the Marines drive to crush Taliban resistance.(for more info see this article http://http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/09/world/la-fg-afghan-civilians9-2010feb09)

On the surface the tactic makes sense, Winning over the civilian population in the midst of an insurgency is the most direct way of impacting a force on irregulars. Guerrilla warfare depends upon assistance--coerced or willingly--from the local populace to keep their effort afloat.The US plan acknowledges this fact and seeks to undercut the Taliban by trying to earn the trust and goodwill of the locals.

As the article notes that means everything from announcing planned offenses months in advance to restricting the use of artillery or air power to as well as tightening the rules of engagement to rebuilding roads and infrastructure to gain the help of the people in combating the Taliban.

That is all well and good, but is it realistic? In an area that is excellent terrain for guerrilla warfare, the difficulty of exercising restraint is 100 on a 100 scale. In the difficult terrain of southern Afghanistan(canals created by the US decades have further complicated things) death can come at any time from almost anywhere. Fire discipline is going to severely tested.

What happens if more civilians are killed in mistakes? War never goes as planned, so further civilian deaths are almost certain. How will the inevitable pressure from the international community impact the United States effort?

What if the restraints lead to a increase of American deaths? What if the Taliban--who are not concerned by the laws of war--resort to using civilians as shields? How do you surmount such tactics?

How this will end up is any one's guess at this point. But with 52% of Americans opposing the Afghanistan conflict, pressure is high on McChrystal to get this right.