Rules of engagement is an oxymoron - Page 2

Rules of engagement is an oxymoron

This is a discussion on Rules of engagement is an oxymoron within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 I whole heartedly agree. There have been times where we've been shot at by AK's...but due to our altitude, armor, and ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Rules of engagement is an oxymoron

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 View Post
    I whole heartedly agree. There have been times where we've been shot at by AK's...but due to our altitude, armor, and the fact that AK's are small arms (we're in a helicopter), we couldn't return fire. Other times it's been called "celebratory fire"...toward a U.S. Helicopter? Yeah right.
    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.

    Within this context, I can think of no more appropriate action than for the helicopter crew to JOIN IN the "celebration"......


  2. #17
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,045
    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]

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    Shouldnt that be "ROE" (Rules of Engagement)

    I've obviously been off active duty and in the business world too long for my own good!

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    Does anyone know when we started using rules of engagement in modern warfare? Was it in Korea? Cold war? WWII?
    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......

    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!

  5. #20
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    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.

  6. #21
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    The real problem, however, is that America seems to want a military whose job is sensitivity and understanding, not killing people and breaking things.
    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.

    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

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    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.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by hudsonvalley View Post
    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!
    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.
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    Any rules for combat sucks. During my 2 tours in Vietnam, I pretty much followed my rules. Don't ask.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. New Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
    By Sig 210 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 10th, 2010, 09:12 AM
  2. Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 29th, 2010, 03:52 PM
  3. US Military Rules of Engagement
    By Paco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 11:35 AM
  4. New Rules of Engagement
    By Patti in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 4th, 2009, 11:00 PM
  5. Klein's Rules Of Engagement
    By Captain Crunch in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 14
    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.