ROE in a war?

[Silence]

I understand that we must treat our enemies with certain standards...but rule of engagement in war?

Please read "Lone Survivor" the story of operation redwing....pay attention the the 4 seals debating and voting on killing 3 afg "farmers". The debate was ...kill them and risk being charged as murders or let them go and risk them telling you are there. The seals let them live and paid dearly for it.
All american's should read this book. It is very revealing about how we ask our military to do things with their hands tied by ROE's.

I'm not sure I understand your point strolling. Are you saying those soldiers should've killed those three people? even if they were unarmed and non-military? if that is what you are saying...wow... that's frightening.

Rules of engagement are what separate US from the terrorists.

 

[pegwinn]

Tell that the to 4000+ families who are grieving the loss of their loved ones.

The issue at hand is ROE problems that come of expecting military troops to act as policemen and diplomats in wars that are NOT wars of all out war, but rather wars of limited nature.

The war in Iraq was not one where we could NOT unleash the trrible swift sword of our military precisely because we could not slaughter the people with abandon as we were attempting to make them our allies.

I had a heart-to-heart with my CO for telling my Marines that if they were forced to choose between the ROE and getting killed, to unload on the other guy. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I've also made casualty calls, they suck. But the good news is that our casualties are very light when measurably compared to the past.

The mission still gets accomplished (often) in spite of whatever obstacles are placed in our way.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The worse you treat the population, the more of them will want to kill you.



Apparently you don't know shit about the lessons of Iraq. Making them "safe in their daily life" requires following the RoE and not killing civilians because you think they "might pose a threat".

Part of why Iraq is more stable now is because AQ was killing indiscriminately. People had sympathy for AQ until they started doing shit that normal everyday Iraqis had problems with. It got a LOT easier for American forces at that time.

Strawman much? How about we stick to what I did say rather than what you want to say I said.

I think what I DID say was perfectly in line with the lessons of Iraq. How is ensuring we don't get in the average Iraqi's way much and maybe getting them a job amount to indiscriminate killing of civilians? Foolish.

I didn't say Iraq should have been a weapons free zone. What I was pointing out was that people using the argument that if we obey the RoE it makes our people safer because then the other side will not do it either are naive.

The option is not between RoE and no RoE. The decision is at a macro level, does your RoE allow you to violate the territory of a third country whether that is Cambodia and Loas or Iran or Pakistan.

At a micro level, does the RoE allow your soldiers adequate force protection and an ability to accomplish the missions assigned? If I have to get 3 levels of approval before I fire a round, those rules are probably not adequate for mission accomplishment.