Rules Of Engagement

Words: 2019
Pages: 9

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) endanger our troops. It makes their job more difficult than it already is, and increases the operational stress of military personnel when dealing with situations that involve the ROE. Overseas, insurgent fighters from terrorist organizations such as ISIL, Taliban, or Al-Qaeda do not wear military uniforms like most armies of the modern day world. Strict rules of engagement while fighting a uniformed fighting force makes sense, but when you are fighting an insurgency in a country where civilians and insurgents look alike, you must adapt to the war you are fighting. It is a much different type of warfare than that of WW2, fighting against uniformed Japanese or Nazi soldiers. Coalition forces fighting insurgencies …show more content…
Well known for writing about his heroic tale called Lone Survivor, later made into a movie. Marcus Luttrell was a US Navy SEAL. Luttrell and his squad of 3 others were on a mission to kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah on the Pakistani-Afghani border. While they were surveying the town in which he was in, they were spotted by 3 goat herders. They were certain that they were Taliban insurgents or informants/spies, but could not prove it as they were unarmed and dressed like regular civilians. If they let them go, they would run down the mountain and tell the Taliban which would compromise the mission. If they killed them, they would be given extremely lengthy prison time back in the United States. After discussing the Rules of Engagement, they decided to let the people go out of fear of being prosecuted back home. They let them go and packed their stuff up to exfiltrate the mission as it was compromised. No longer than half an hour later, they were engaged in a firefight with 100+ Taliban. Marcus Luttrell said in his book, “Look at me right now in my story, helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it’s worth: If you don’t want to get into a war where things …show more content…
“ For months now, Canadian and other NATO troops fighting in southern Afghanistan have complained that restrictive rules of engagement, written to win Afghans away from insurgents by limiting civilian casualties, have handed the momentum to the enemy.” It is very difficult to differentiate civilians from insurgents in those countries, so the ROEs should revolve around that issue itself. In war, innocent people die as well. That is just the cost of invading one's country. Yes, the ROEs can limit the deaths of civilians, but they should not interfere with the stressful jobs of soldiers and make their jobs burdensome. Another example of the frustration of the Rules of Engagement occurred in Panjwai District, Afghanistan. “A pair of Canadian helicopters circled low over a vineyard, watching two insurgents try to slip away, waiting for permission to shoot. The chopper crew and soldiers on the ground were confident they had a good kill in their sights, with little risk of harming innocent bystanders if the Griffon’s door gunner pulled the trigger. But the crew needed permission from high up the chain of command, an often frustrating hierarchy that soldiers call ‘the kill chain.’” It took them twenty minutes to pull the trigger and eliminate the insurgents. They risked their lives tailing armed hostiles for twenty minutes while asking for permission to shoot. Again, this example proves the fact that the ROEs