May 15th, 2008 03:36 AM
In this era of politically correct soldiering, the Civil Affairs component of the overall mission must not be neglected. It is therefore important that "peacekeepers" BOND with the community.
Originally Posted by C9H13NO3
Within this context, I can think of no more appropriate action than for the helicopter crew to JOIN IN the "celebration"......
May 15th, 2008 07:05 AM
I bet if MORE of the upper command had to be up front with the REAL action, the 'supposed' Rules would change...OMO
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
May 15th, 2008 07:25 AM
May 15th, 2008 07:40 AM
Unless you go back to, say the Mongols, there have always been ROE. It might be as simple as "don't shoot women and children", but that's a rule too......
Originally Posted by stanislaskasava
ROE get much more restrictive and problematic when the battlefield is mixed with combatants and non-combatants. When the Marines landed on Iwo Jima.....the ROE was a virtual non-concern. In Baghdad, much more so.
The real pain in the butt comes from limitations that politicians place on combatants because of political correctness and their concerns for appearances.......as an example, don't shoot up a mosque, even though the BG's are shooting at you from that mosque! Combine that with the immediacy of modern news reporting and a biased media that's looking to sensationalize anything that might paint our military in a bad light, and it just makes life that much more difficult (and dangerous) for the troops on the ground.
They're takin' all the fun out of ground combat these days!
May 15th, 2008 08:35 AM
There's a price to being the good guy.
That's not to say that ROE are always reasonable or that we're always giving our guys the benefit of the doubt. People, including a friend of mine whose name has been in the news for several years, have been sold down the river for media/political expediency.
But if you're going to wear the American flag, you must deal with the restrictions and the consequences of morality. And believe me, there are some sadists and miscreants wearing our uniform.
The real problem, however, is that America seems to want a military whose job is sensitivity and understanding, not killing people and breaking things.
May 15th, 2008 03:43 PM
Well-said, actually. The problem is that the military is not a police force. People want a benevolent organization that will hold hands, walk children home through dangerous areas... and politely ask the enemy to leave when it shows up. The reality is that, like Orwell described them, those *ROUGH* men (and women) are necessary. They have to be mean, dirty, and willing to do things the rest of us don't want to. I think some people would be happier if the US Marines were armed with peace signs and daisies to place in the barrels of Al-queda's guns.
Originally Posted by AgentX
But would we benefit from a relaxed ROE system? From my armchair position 10,000 miles from Baghdad, its easy to shake my fist at the US Government and grumble about letting the soliders on the ground make the call. Sure, why not? Its my right. However hearing on the news that a group of Marines can't shoot at a Mosque because they don't want to offend anyone.. it infuriates me. Kinda. Now, that's where it gets complicated.. I'll stick with this example to illustrate..
You have a Mosque. There is good intel that tells us we have around 45 armed EC's (Enemy Combatants) inside armed with AKs, grenades, RPGs, and a slew of low-tech firebombs. US Army unit.. we'll say a Company-sized unit.. performs a movement into the area, securing a perimeter... In a "hearts and minds" campaign, blowing up a Mosque is a huge loss. Or is it? Sure it looks bad on Al-Jazeera and CNN. Obviously it would anger Muslims everywhere to see the US blowing up a Mosque. However - what if that unit did? And the next time EC's occupy a Mosque, an Army Company does it again. And so on and so on. Now, the Army does not drive around arbitrarily blowing-up Mosques... That much is obvious. Eventually, would locals get the point that if EC's are occupying a Mosque, the locals would turn on the EC's to drive them out?? After all, nobody wants their Mosque going ballistic, right? Sure, we might win out on the ground in Baghdad.. eventually.. but the rest of the Muslim world would sure as Hell want this country on a platter.
I am NOT - in any way, shape, or form, advocating that we begin blowing up Mosques. Hell no. I am just using this example to illustrate a point that the ROE, while it might 'suck', is there for a reason. An alternative way to view the ROE might be this: Imagine the same thing here. A self-imposed Ruler (of undefined religion) was killing and torturing Christians for no reason and imposed his religions own form of Sharia Law. We'll call this ruler 'Frank.' Frank ruled like Saddam. But still allowed you to go about your daily life as long as you didn't make waves. Little Sally goes to school. Johnny rides his bike. You all goto church together. A foreign Army, we'll say German, invades to liberate us from this ruler and try to reinstall impartial democracy. Now, the Followers of Frank (FoF) don't dig this idea and they start bombing the Germans with IED's when they roll through small towns. Day in and out, the FoF keep performing operations. Even installing themselves in your hometown church when the Germans come rolling through. The FoF fires on the Germans from the church, knowing the Blue Force can't engage. Now stop right there.. Suddenly, Fallujah isn't so far from your front door is it?
See how I mean that the ROE can be very complex? There is no blanket answer to all situations, therefore they have to plan for the lowest common denominator. Like safety rules for new shooters. Experienced shooters must be extra careful around them lest they pick-up something that we do that either they do not understand or we have as a negative practice. My big problem is when it gets political. I have zero problem with the military designing its own ROE for implementation. Warfighters fight wars, politicians are not.
Meh.. just some food for thought. Like I said, I'm just a guy in a chair a long way from the front lines. I can write stuff like this all day because I don't have to go on patrol and spend 13+ months away from my friends and family. Bless those who do so I can.
Last edited by SixBravo; May 15th, 2008 at 05:31 PM.
The Gunsite Blog
ITFT / Quick Kill Review
"It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008
May 15th, 2008 04:02 PM
Do you have to ask them nicely to stand so you can get a clear shot? WHO THOUGHT THAT CR*P UP ANYWAY?
I'm sorry you guys go through what you go through. Thanks for your sacrifice.....
Now...I've heard that the enemy wants to die for Allah.....Our guys want to go home to their families, God willing, in one piece. Come on! 1+1= Let's figure out how to get them to come out of the rat holes they're hiding in and explain that by sending them to Kingdom come, we all get what we want in the end!
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
May 16th, 2008 06:19 PM
but how are all the americans that want to be the one to kill bin laden going to get what they want?too many people with that one christmas wish for all of them to be satisfied.
Originally Posted by hudsonvalley
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
May 16th, 2008 06:26 PM
Any rules for combat sucks. During my 2 tours in Vietnam, I pretty much followed my rules. Don't ask.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
By Sig 210 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: August 10th, 2010, 09:12 AM
By WhoWeBePart1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: June 29th, 2010, 03:52 PM
By Paco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 11:35 AM
By Patti in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: December 4th, 2009, 11:00 PM
By Captain Crunch in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 12th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Search tags for this page
rules of engagement oxymoron
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors