In What Way Are The Hands Of US Troops In Iraq Tied?

Question

I read about this perception more often lately. Anybody care to give some examples of the problem?

Examples of overly restrictive ROE?

Answer 1

Their hands are tied because this is not a war, it is an occupation, and they are caught in a civil strife between various religious elements among the different Iraqi tribes.

Their enemies are various "insurgents," coupled with some members of Al Queda who have come to Iraq to fight Americans. These fighters do not wear uniforms, but look like every other Arab and mingle with the crowd, indistinguishable from the average citizen. Their main weapons are missiles and IED's, which they plant in the roadways. Both cause considerable damage.

These fighters not only kill and maim Americans, but do a good job of battling with each other. There are the Sunni insurgents, some of whom have joined us in fighting. There are the Shiite Mahdi Army, run by a powerful cleric named Al Sadr. Sunnis and Shiites dislike each other because each has a different version of the Islamic religion.

Besides Sunni and Shiite, there are the Kurds, who have much of the oilfields, and who are threatened by countries like Turkey, for reasons I do not know.

It's a total and absolute mess and I believe that a U.S. troop withdrawal would benefit the area, with the understanding that the powerful clerics in Iran, Saudi and Syria, etc., step in to halt the carnage. Believe me, the clerics are the real power behind the throne in any Islamic country.

If we stay in Iraq, we will have access to huge oilfields, but we cannot kill every Arab fighter in the Middle East, and the battle will continue into infinity. It comes down to a question of right and wrong. Do we have the right to attack a country, then occupy it.? What are our reasons for fighting in Iraq, when our real enemy, Osama bin Laden, still evades capture?

Answer 2

1 - Not enough troops in the first place.

2 - The rules of engagement do not always permit the troops to respond aggressively enough to finish off the enemy during an encounter (read: elimination of or reduction of civilian casualties, or potential civilian casualties, take precedence over killing the enemy).

3 - Poor leadership, although this has recently improved dramatically with the ascent of General Petraeus to the job of defeating the "insurgents".

Answer 3

the only component everlasting the government does is TAX and SPEND. despite if the President signed an settlement that tried to do what you declare, the subsequent President could nonetheless have the flexibility as Commander-in-chief to reserve the militia out of ANY region.

Answer 4

Apparently they are not allowed to fire until fired upon and I've heard they have to have seen who fired. We used to take over cities then walk out rather than keep them because that is what the orders were.
Remember back in WWII we used to level entires cities because it had to be done to defeat the Germans and the residents of those cities still welcomed us with joy because they knew that unfortunately some will die in an effort to secure freedom for the majority. Unfortunately you have to be willing to kill in order to secure freedom.

Answer 5

It's not a matter of their hands being tied.

It's a matter of asking 120,000 people to do a job that wound required 10x that many to accomplish.

As far as the rule of engagement (ROE) -- the problem is that our forces were trained to fight against other armies -- not against guerillas -- same reason we smoked the British soldiers during the revolutionary war -- the tactics and training are not compatible.

But I must disagree with those who suggest we adopt the same tactics as the terrorists -- because if we did, how does that make us any better than those we oppose?

Answer 6

The ROE has not been changed for the better since post WWII.

Answer 7

The Rules of Engagement apply to uniformed adversaries. Many soldiers have been suspended, investigated, and some have been convicted for firing on "civilians" not wearing uniforms. Many of these "civilians" were firing weapons and planting IEDs moments before their deaths.

Answer 8

For the most important reason of all, they are not fighting a standing army. We have thrust our military into a civil war referee agenda, the role of our Military is to provide for the common defense, not to be sent on Imperialistic missions with no end in sight.

Answer 9

it is not the us troops hands that are tied it is the us government when they first invaded it was supposed to be a quick victory but everything whent belly up now they cant leave for the fear of being branded as losers of the war and they cannot use heavy force because it is illegal for them to do so i can go on and on but ithink you get the picture

Answer 10

Easy. We follow "rules of engagement" - they don't.

For example, we're not allowed to even *look* too closely at a mosque - the enemy hides in them.