English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-07 05:08:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

So far the only intelligent answer was about fish eggs. All I want are the current ROE. Don't lecture a 20yr plus veteran on what ROE means. When will FNG's learn?

2007-02-07 05:28:13 · update #1

7 answers

ROE in Iraq has not changed.

See the link below to read it for yourself.

2007-02-07 06:29:59 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0 0

Sorry big Sgt. , but the keep changing the ROE.

The guy who answered first should take a look at what ROE means , and learn when deadly force is authorized.
the correct answers were no, no, and maybe. (in need of more details)

2007-02-07 06:18:31 · answer #2 · answered by Ray H 7 · 1 0

There is only one rule of engagement that counts -- if you are in a situation where you have a reasonable belief that you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, lethal force is authorized. BOTTOM LINE: As long as an American soldier exercises sound judgment, the presumption is that lethal force was authorized and the soldier did the right thing.

Here's a few examples:

(1) You see a man in a turban 20 feet away from you brandishing a knife and shouting at you. Is lethal force authorized? ANSWER: Yes. But what if there is a chain-link fence between you and the man -- is lethal force authorized now? ANSWER: No.

(2) You see two men just outside the perimeter fence burying what appears to be a homemade bomb. They're basically ignoring you and going about their business. Is lethal force authorized? ANSWER: Yes. Even though they are not armed and pointing weapons at you, that bomb constitutes a threat to your life and safety, so shoot to kill.

(3) You see men in the streets of Baghdad carrying AK-47 rifles. They appear to be transporting them from one building to another. They're not pointing them at you or at any other soldiers. Is lethal force authorized? ANSWER: Yes. If they're not wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi Police and they're carrying guns, you can reasonably assume, to quote Clint Eastwood, that "they're not out collecting for the Red Cross."

See how it works?

2007-02-07 05:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by sarge927 7 · 0 2

Judging by the high number of civillian casualties (somewhere between 55 000 and 100 000 (IBC and The Lancet respectively)) and allied "friendly fire" casualties, the rules of engagement for US forces seems to be "anything that moves".

CF

2007-02-07 05:31:30 · answer #4 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 0 3

ROE's can change from day to day and they are dependant on your AO. So you'd have to be more specific... what AO?

2007-02-07 05:21:57 · answer #5 · answered by MadMaxx 5 · 0 1

Well if you are a 20 yr old vet then you should now about a little thing call OPSEC. Why would you want to know state side anyways. you'll get it in country. OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC

2007-02-07 06:41:01 · answer #6 · answered by Nasty Leg 2 · 0 0

Is that fish eggs.

2007-02-07 05:19:29 · answer #7 · answered by Susan A 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers