Why is the U.S military in Iraq restricted by rules of engagement? War is about kill or be killed, correct?

Answer 1

No. In fact, throughout history there have been 'conventions' of warfare. The Geneva Convention is an agreement to try and keep war 'civilized' !?!
There are rules all parties agree to follow through mediators, such as the Red Cross or UN. These cover such issues as shooting at civilians and the proper treatment of prisoners of war.

Answer 2

! it's because the leaders in congress think they know how to fight the war. Please, most are Vietnam vets. they have no clue how to fight a war like this. They are doing what was done to them.
Don't get me wrong. I respect that they fought for this country, I just don't think that they are being up front with us. True most elected this time are vets. They just have to see that war is kill or be killed. They just have to keep their nose out of this, and let the military do what has to be done. Let history decide if they were right.

We are the only country that goes by the Geneva convention, the so called rules for war. Rules for war indeed. the only rule for war is to win.

I guess what I'm saying is our leaders should let us go in and kick *** and take names.

Answer 3

because as soon as the US admits that it is conducting an illegal war, the UN could invoke sanctions upon it. The military intervention was illegal in the first place, but The US, and UK justified the intervention because they maintained that the Iraqi regime was manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

OK, so the Us, and UK have been caught with their pants down. Did they invade to appease George W.'s daddy, who was prevented from finishing the job in the sanctioned war 14 years ago, or did they actually have evidence of WMD's?

We will never know, but now we find our self in the unenviable task of trying to make the best of a bad job. In that we have removed one minor little problem, and opened up the biggest can of worms on thr face of the planet. The troops seriously have de-stabled a region, and simply cannot pull out, now we have caused so much potential problems.

It is not a war, it never was. If it was - then Bush and Blair are guilty of war crimes, for they made war on an innocent, obnoxious, but innocent, third party.

Answer 4

This is a great question for people who serve in our military. Taking someones life or seeing your buddies die at the hands of our enemies is a difficult thing to understand in terms of "Rules of Engagement". In war, combatants are fighting for a cause that they believe in; regardless of what others think. Our military holds a lot of pride in honor in the fact that we don't indescriminantly kill innocent people. Our society places a lot of trust and confidence in our military to wage war according to basic principles of dignity and respect. This is why even individual events that have happened has created such a loud outcry from our society. While the events at Abu Garab were terrible, the fact of the matter is these were isolated events, and our society knows that.

This not isolated incidents among our enemies. They routinely kill and terrorize innocent people simply because of the faith they preach or their nethnic origin. Daily innocent people get their heads cut off by these butchers and this is the primary reason why we are here.

I wish this war was as simple as being about Iraq, but it is about ridding this world of extremists who want to destroy anything that is not living by their twisted views of faith.

Rules of Engagement do more to protect me than hurt me in this difficult fight. They serve to provide simple guidance to the fact that Deadly Force Is Always Authorized When You Perceive Death To You Or Others Around You.

Answer 5

Alas, wholesale killing of civilians is a good way to turn the entire population against the USA and prolong the killing. It's also a public-relations nightmare in the USA and allied nations. Bush wants a friendly Iraq (so he can get the oil flowing), not a giant crater.

Answer 6

Because we are not at war with Iraq, but with subversive elements hiding amongst the general population. We are trying to get them to the point where they can secure their own streets, then we are leaving.

Rules of engagement are set up by the warring parties in order to make war more "humane", such as no flamethrowers, no nukes, no chemical weapons, etc...

Answer 7

If we just fight to kill, then we lose the very reason of why we are fighting. Though the rules of engagements can get a little hectic at times, they ensure that innocent people are not massacred in the process. If we wanted to just kill everybody, we would've nuked them a looooong time ago.

Answer 8

There are always ROE's in any war. I hate to reinforce the error in thinking that there's a separation between politics and military action, but in this one the largely political portion is dominant over the largely military, and the ROE's have to acknowledge it. One has to recognize the kind of war one is fighting in order to be successful.

Answer 9

Because the liberals seem to think that if we play nice and by the rules, everybody will like us and the world will be a better place.

They don't understand that when fighting an enemy that has no rules, we can't win by trying to implement them. The only way to eliminate the problem, is to eliminate the problems.

Answer 10

Although I agree with most of the answers, even if we agreed not to brutalize in war, What does that say about our enemy ? Just the thought of suicide bombers blowing up innocent people enrages me. Where are all the Human rights groups when this continues to happen? We are held to ahigher standard then the enemy in which we fight. We should be, but, we also should be allowed to defeat our enemy as well. Our enemy knows this and uses us in this war.