Rules of engagement

While attention was largely focused on the ongoing "speak no evil" Senate confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, another and perhaps equally important appointment swept through the Senate this week in the proverbial blink of an eye.

Gen. David H. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed Wednesday as the new commander of the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, replacing Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was ousted after he was quoted making disparaging remarks about the nation's civilian leadership.

The 99-0 Senate vote followed a confirmation hearing Tuesday in which members of the Senate Armed Services Committee praised Gen. Petraeus' leadership of the war in Iraq and lauded him as the nation's premier warrior-diplomat -- a far cry from the treatment he got from leading Senate Democrats, including Nevada's own Harry Reid, when he came before them in 2007 to explain his planned "surge" in Iraq.

In a nod to troops who complained Gen. McChrystal tied their hands with rules that often placed avoidance of collateral civilian casualties above the support and safety of friendly troops, Gen. Petraeus said this week he would "look very hard" at the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

"I will continue the emphasis on reducing the loss of innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum in the course of military operations," Gen. Petraeus said. But the general added that, "When our troops and our Afghan partners are in a tough spot ... it's a moral imperative that we use everything we have to ensure that they get out."

Good. America does not go to war hoping to inflict death and destruction on innocent civilians. But in a guerrilla war against an enemy that can't be counted on to wear easily identifiable uniforms, American soldiers have a right to expect all available force will be applied to keep them safe -- and that they won't be brought up on charges if they return fire from obviously hostile forces.