In a war, if one force decides to break the rules of engagement?

Question

does that equate to the other side having the ability to do the same? Think about past examples such as the American Revolutionary War, in which the brits, never adapted to the broken rules of engagement that the Americans perpetrated

I guess no one likes my question. :(

I have noticed that, tommy g

Answer 1

I suppose I'm one of those old fashioned people who believes in real and consistent morals. If it was bad for Saddam to gas and torture civilians, then it's bad for us to gas and torture civilians, and I'm glad we don't.

First, it just strikes me that some things are bad, pure and simple, and anyone who does them is similarly bad. Retaliation in kind does not excuse the action.

The other, much more pressing reason I believe we should keep to the moral high road is that I believe it is simply more effective. One of the things that brought down Hitler was that he was so brutal and horrible that he could never truly conqueor any nation. Instead, partisans and sabateurs always developed, and he ended up having to run many factories at the point of a gun --- and even then, productivity and product quality were miserably low because everyone wanted to interfere with production every chance they got.

This second reason is much more true in a conflict like Iraq, where our goal isn't so much to kill a certain number of insurgents, but is much more to win the hearts of the population so that they cease to become insurgents. If we carpet bomb weddings, we may kill a few bad guys, but we'll create far more new bad guys who are infuriated at the death of their wives and children. This, I believe, is why the military does its best to adhere to a code of conduct, even when the opposition does not.

We're supposed to by the guys in the white hats here, and we should always act like it.

Answer 2

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "rules of engagement" To explain, the rules of engagement for a fighting force are those rules set down for them by their own government. The term doesn't imply a standard agreed upon by the two adversaries.
When I was in Vietnam, our Rules of Engagement governed what we could and could not legally do in pursuit of a military objective. For example our operational area had a dusk to dawn curfew------our rules permitted/required us to engage with fire anyone out and about during that time. Our rules forbade activities as well, such as rape committed against the native population.
I think what you mean are some sort of code such as the Geneva Conventions, but the fact is, the losers are tried for war crimes and illegal behavior, not the victors.

Answer 3

That is why some Generals are brilliant & some are just...followers dressed as leaders. I'm not sure the rules of engagement phrase is the appropriate term here. A good general will examine both their own & the opponents strengths & weaknesses., then develop a strategy to take advantage of the facts. A good general will also adapt to the situation as it stands in plotting the next set of strategies & tactics. The most adaptable General wins.

Patience, Ben. Some of us see a more thoughtful person coming out. Also, thoughtful answers take longer than shooting from the lip.

Answer 4

In my opinion once the rules are broken there are no rules.The fight is always for life,fight it that way.


Questions that make sense or don't play to a grade school mind do poorly on here most of the time.