Rules of Engagement: up to date?

Question

With the so called 'War on Terror' brining the Military in contact with irregular combatants more often, guerillas and terrorists etc, should the RoE change to suit the chance in combatant?

Answer 1

The Laws of Armed Conflict, or LoAC, is pretty specific. Anyone who takes up arms against us is a legitimate military target. We engage them until they are either rendered incapable of fighting or surrender. At that point, the violence stops. Period.

Civilians and other non-combatants (medical, chaplains, etc.) are NEVER a legitimate military target unless they take up arms against our forces at which time they become legal military targets. We will not deliberately target civilians or non-combatant military forces and we will minimize their exposure to violence as much as is reasonably possible.

There is no need for change of the RofE. It's all well spelled out.

Answer 2

Rememer back to World War ll did Japan engage in the rules of war when they brought into conflict the USA with the atrocity of Pearl Habour taking British soldiers prisoners in Burma to work the railway the Germans with the invasion of Austria France sending thousands to the consentration camps they all started out as and ended in my eyes as terrorists. But at the end of the day the biggest terrorist of them all is the president the dictator or the power wanter the geneva conventon gives out the rules of war and they should not be touched they are there for the good of the soldier and the civillian go to the lik and read you will be enlightened iwas

Answer 3

The ROE clearly states thet the armed person is allowed to fire if the target person is committing, or about to commit an act that will endanger life, whether it be firing a rifle to blowing himself up, as long as the target can be shot without risking lives of others (eg crowded areas not good). This makes sense, and should not be changed, as plenty of innocents could be shot if it does.

The guy who said the rules go out the window when it gets hectic is totally wrong! EVERY round fired takes the weapon holder to court, where s/he has to prove that s/he followed the ROE. If there is any doubt, there's big trouble

Answer 4

Are you that naive? Do you honestly think in the heat of battle that the "rules" come in to play?

Get real.

When the fecal matter hits the oscillating air moving device, you can bet the "rule" is eat or be eaten.

Never mind the heat, I sincerely believe that strategists routinely engage in activities that 'gentlemen' might call unorthodox. In public, we see one face, you can bet that the other cheek is turned when the battle is on and the cameras aren't.

TFTP

Answer 5

seems not enough people here know the current rules of engagement imposed on our troops out there! They are actually pathetic and very restricting! We are at war therefore the basics of "destroy the enemy and targets" should apply.

British forces have worse rules out there now than we did serving in Northern Ireland. I cannot comment on the U.S policies but believe they are similar.

Answer 6

for the most part they HAVE been changed, ROE's are often set based on the conflict, there is no one set of ROE's that govern all conflicts, except for those that appear in the geneva convention and even THOSE have loopholes..

Answer 7

yes
and the upstairs neighbor is so Right let's make war the old fashion way as you see what they are doing to Israel they don't worry about civilians

Answer 8

no, even though we are ingaging irreguler forces we cant just go around killing everything because that defeats the purpose of liberating a country.

Answer 9

WE SHOULD THROW ALL THE RULES OUT AND KICK ***.

Answer 10

probably but don't ask me I'm a pacifist