What exactly are the "Rules of engagement" in the military?

Question

please explain them to me

Answer 1

Rules of engagement are rules one must follow before shooting your weapon while in combat. They are always different depending on the mission. For example when the war in Iraq first started, our rules of engagement were to shoot if we saw the enemy with a weapon. Those rules of engagements later changed to shoot only when being shot at.

They pretty much let you know when you can engage the enemy. If you don't follow the rules then you may end up in trouble. I hope this helped

Sgt
USMC

Answer 2

the RoE will change depending on the area, terrain and threat. We have an accronym called METT-TC, Mission, equipment, time, terrain, tactics and civilians that all ties into the RoE. The most common one is "Do not fire unless your life or someone else's is reasonably in danger." RoE's change at times to fit what is happeneing and is generally a guideline of what one can and can't do under the Geneva Conventions. There is also something called LOAC, Law of Armed Conflict. Anybody that is not under the RoE's but still subject to the Geneva convention rulings must follow the Laws of Armed Conflict. They are more of a peactime/ armastice/ reduced threat set of rules that show the same thing.

Answer 3

To follow a bunch of rules in combat ie not attacking a funeral even if it has 100 terrorists.

Seriosly its war and terrorists show no mercy on the world but why does the world show mercy on terrorists. What is wrong with mankind, they should eliminate all who are ruling the world ino reaching its potential.Im talking about murders and gangs etc. they should all be killed. They ruin society. The rules of engagement do not work especially in the Israeli Armed forces where places of terrorist worship are bombed. Why
have the rules of engagement when the rules r impossible
to follow.

Answer 4

Rules of engagement will vary from one spec op mission to another.

It is a set of rules and actions that are to be followed with no exceptions. For example, rules of engagement on a SAR, ( Search and Destroy) mission may dictate terminate enemy combatants on sight.

Or to the contrary, do not fire unless fired upon.

Bottom line, Rules of engagement are standing orders that are mission specific that define action or actions to be taken, without exception.

Good question,

Darryl S.

Answer 5

The rules of engagement are established by a commander or commanding authority. They govern what type of force is to be used in a given situation(s) in a military action; as well as situation(s) in which the use of force is not permitted. Literally, what "rules" are to be followed in an "engagement".

e.g.- Regard any personnel not wearing Coalition Forces uniforms as potential enemy combatants.

Answer 6

well before it was an official decleration of war for starters.then we were not allowed to shoot civilians or kill or torcher prisoners of war.medics were not allowed to have fire arms . in return they wernt killed by the enemy they were also obligated to treat enmy wounds on the field and off. basically every thing we dont really do today in iraq and other conflicts.

In military or police operations, the rules of engagement (ROE) determine when, where and how force shall be used. Such rules are both general and specific, and there have been large variations between cultures throughout history. The rules may be made public, as in a martial law or curfew situation, but are typically only fully known to the force that intends to use them.

Contents [hide]
1 US military ROE
2 ROE failures
3 Current Issues
4 See also
5 References



[edit]
US military ROE
The US Department of Defense officially defines ROE as:

"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1]
The ROE deal with four issues [2]:

When military force may be used,
Where military force may be used,
Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and
How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.
The ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The ROE are extremely important:

They provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each.
They assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force.
The first rule of engagement for United States military forces is always the right to use force in self-defense.

[edit]
ROE failures
In any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. This creates room for two types of error:

Excessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a political or diplomatic objective, and the military commanders, who are trying make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan [2] provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of too restrictive ROE.
Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II or 'escalatory' error and an example of it may be the killing of Jean de Menezes on July 22, 2005.
[edit]
Current Issues
The late 20th and early 21st centuries witnessed an increase in the use of private military contractors. Such contractors are not bound by the same rules of engagement, standing orders, or levels of accountability as are members of a national military force.

[edit]
See also
The Moscow Rules, an example of the use of the ROE term in spycraft
[edit]
References
USDOD. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: NATO Only Terms. United States of America: Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff, Department of Defense. December 17, 2003.
Sagan, Scott D., Rules of Engagement, pp 443 - 470 in: George, A., Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management, ISBN 0-8133-1232-9. This well-written analysis provides an excellent overview.
Private Military Companies, Taljaard, R. Yale Global Online 9 December 2003.Modern Day Mercenaries.

Answer 7

The ROE changes with every mission. If you are in the boonies with a small team you are going to E&E until you reach your objective. If you are are compromised you must use your best judgement before firing. Firing your weapon is not always your best option, but in certain circumstances your roe gives you every right to kill everything in sight.

A different unit on the same day in a different local my have so many restrictions on them because of their roe that they might have to watch a bunch of towl heads walk through their perimeter.

ROE's SUCK.

Insirgants don't have ROE's, they are hellbent on killing, and they know that we have to think for a moment before we kill them. Sad, very sad.

Answer 8

in Essenes it is to kiss those illiterate fanatics *** while they are chopping off our brothers heads, and to treat them kindly and not hurt their feelings or say any thing detrimental about their religion, be politically correct, abide by the rules of engagement???

Answer 9

There is no one answer to that question. It depends on where you are, what your mission is, who you are with, sometimes even the date or time of day.

Answer 10

in todays politics anything can change fast at any given moment during war.