2007-10-22 13:51:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Whats so hard about to not fire unless fired upon??? That's the RoE, and it prevents civilian casualties, although Bush's bombing campaign was a hell of a lot less generous.
2007-10-22 13:54:13 · answer #1 · answered by NONAME 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's because of the nature of the conflict. In a 'normal' war, where the enemy wears uniforms, such rules are both less onerous, and less vital to victory. In an asymetric guerilla conflict, you're not just fighting to defeat the enemy, but to win the cooperation of the populace. Since the populace will almost certainly be more sympathetic to the enemy to begin with, you have to hold your soldiers to a suicideally noble standard of behavior to have any hope of convincing them to 'like' you enough to cooperate. The alternative, of course, is to have rules of engagement designed to win the cooperation of the populace by making them /fear/ you more than the terrorists. For obvious reasons, that option - though, realistically, probably more likely to succeed in a situation like Iraq - is unacceptable.
2007-10-22 21:09:56 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because that's what federal law and international treaties (which have the same force as federal law) requires.
You have three options -- follow the laws -- change the laws and follow them -- or throw away the laws.
Rules of Engagement are so that we follow the laws -- and if you don't set some laws and some rules -- then you are no different than the terrorists you claim to oppose.
2007-10-22 20:57:01 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are always rules of engagement. That's what differentiates military action from murder. In counterinsurgency operations, it's even more important, because of the primary importance of obtaining the good will of the local populace.
2007-10-22 21:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every organized military in modern history has been placed under rules of engagement. You can certainly debate the actual rules. But, to act as if they shouldn't exist is silly.
2007-10-22 20:58:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they are not fighting an army
they are fighting some individuals among civilians on a day to day life.
remember this war was supposed to be beneficial for those very civilians-freedom and democracy.
But all fighing tactics adapt to the context,both military and political. This war is fought amidst skepticism of its motives from both Iraqis themselves and rest of the world;that it is not what it was declared to be,therefore winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilian population is very essential.
Among the soldiers there can be some who are overwhelmed by stress or have emotional or psychological problems that push them to fire to subside their inner restlessness.These rules are to restrain them and to make sure the militiray operations are for a specific mission.
2007-10-22 21:00:25 · answer #6 · answered by Chakat 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they know liberals press hounds are behind every rock just waiting to report something nasty.
2007-10-22 20:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by Lavrenti Beria 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I suppose it's that pesky duty to do the right thing -- to behave honorably even if our opponents do not.
2007-10-22 20:54:33 · answer #8 · answered by Steve 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How otherwise they will pretend to be civilized?
2007-10-22 20:55:12 · answer #9 · answered by RX 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋