Has the US ever fought a war where they had to wait to be shot at before they could shoot back?

Question

I saw on the Military Channel last night a group of US troops in Iraq who were about to be ambushed & could see insurgents running around with AK-47s & RPGs & all they could do was watch them! How in heck do you win a war with those kind of rules? I can see how many people feel that the cowardly Dems, lib media & Moveon.org hurt the troops in Iraq but if those same troops can't even fire on the terrorists/insurgents when they want to, how the hell are they suppose to win the war?

Answer 1

Yes we had the same ROE (rules of engagement) in Vietnam. If you shoot at them you have to be able to prove that A. they had a weapon.
B. they were a direct threat to you.
I know it sounds silly, but you have to understand if a soldier shoots and kills a suspected enemy the first thing that happens is the enemy's gun disappears, then the reporters show up and make like the dead guy was just some civilian shot by a kill crazy GI.

Answer 2

Many times in the beginning of the Vietnam war combat groups had to abide by such rules. And I believe previously during WW I I similar situations came up. This is often the case when you are conducting military operations in the middle of an urban area where there are civilians, women, little boys, little girls who could get caught in the cross fire. The commanders back at the base want to make sure they have some oversight of the situation. In any case, most of the time in Iraq the squads on patrol have a lot of discretion - certainly they can defend themselves. And some times they have illegally targeted civilians - but you won't see that on CNN.

Answer 3

Infantry tactics have a relatively less important role in fourth generation war. There's no sense in being stupid about it, but when it's reasonably safe, they're more effective when they're not in Kevlar and not shooting, but rather getting to know and befriend the local polulace. You obviously can't ask them to walk into an ambush fat, dumb and happy, but at the same time if they can get across the idea that they aren't just one of the groups putting out rounds but rather are there to help the locals, they're doing more to win this kind of war.
US forces are superb at second-generation war (calling in arty) and third-generation war (fire and maneuver), but their training in fourth-generation war has until very recently been quite minimal, and the Army is a traditional and bureaucratic business built on late nineteenth century organizational principles. Those weaknesses are bound to show up from time to time when they're out of their comfort zone of training. This is exacerbated somewhat by an officer corps trained to avoid potential errors (and the kind of risk I'm talking about you'll be familiar with if you've ever had to fill out OER's).

Answer 4

It has everything to do with the Use of Force Concept. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where it is uncommon to carry a weapon where every you go. Think about how many third world countries there are out there vs. civilized nations. U.S. Forces are trained that deadly force is authorized only when personnel are in direct and imminent threat of death. The worse part is that the troops in the field who are KNOW they are about to get into some SH*@ have to ask permission to engage before they fire. Many times the authorization is denied. How weak is that?

Answer 5

1st theory: what's an 'agreeable' conflict? How will we be sure the circumstances that lead one to contemplate a conflict to be merely? 2d theory: If conflict replaced into brought to one's own doorstep, might that person refuse to combat because of the fact they do no longer accept as true with it? The draft existed throughout WW2, and somewhat a number of the adult men who fought and died throughout that element have been draftees. for sure, if somebody would desire to be drafted, then it demands that the guy did no longer voluntarily enlist. From this, it is inferred that the clarification at the back of conflict did no longer sufficiently charm to them. chew on that.

Answer 6

What you saw is true. This is what you get when the rules are being laid out from Washington. It is a real shame that soldiers are not allowed to fight a battle the way they were trained.

Answer 7

what's even funnier is if you saw someone running through the streets in the U.S. with an AK-47, the cops would shoot 'em right in the back. heck over in KY, they'll shoot you in the back just for running, no weapon in hand.

Answer 8

Yes, sadly I was in it. It sucks not being able to call in air support due to politcal reasons.

Answer 9

thats a brilliant question
how do we?
very long it would take