Talk:Rules of engagement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military science task force

(2004) There is an increase in the use of Private Military Companies (PMC's) in modern conflict. Typically these companies are not bound by the same ROE and well thought out standing orders that a national military force adheres to. Nor are they typically as accountable. This increases the likelihood of Type II errors.

Ah...can someone give an example of this? I've never heard this before, and at the very least, I'm quite interested to know. At the very most, it could be factually inaccurate, not that I have any proof. Endersdouble 20:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking strictly anecdotally, I would say that the involvement of military contractors in Abu Ghraib (see New Yorker article, I'm sorry I don't have the reference) contributed to frustrating US goals in Iraq and was therefore a Type II error.

If you are looking for text references, Larry Diamond writes of "different rules of engagement" in Iraq (he is referring to non-military allied forces, including police). (Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2004, "What went wront in Iraq"). Does that help?--Magicmike 16:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also recommend "New and old Wars" (Kaldor,M). --Magicmike 19:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 USMC Continuum of Force 2 World Wide View 3 Misguided links. 4 Criticism of the ROE 5 The present Rules of Engagement 6 Present ROE 7 British ROE is off-topic. 8 Redirection

[edit] USMC Continuum of Force

The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

• Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.

• Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.

• Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.

• Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.

• Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

This seems worth incorporating somehow, and is within the public domain. Rorybowman 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Done.

[edit] World Wide View

This article should be tagged for not representing a worldwide view; it only presents ROE for Britain and the U.S. Maybe if someone knows other ROE's, we can expand the article.

[edit] Misguided links.

The page on MMORPGs refers to the game "Rubies of Eventide" occasionally abbreviated as "RoE," and links to the article under "RoE," which is, mistakenly, this one. I have already posted this problem under the page for Rubies of Eventide in hopes that someone will make a distinction between the two "RoE" pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.206.147 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism of the ROE

There needs to be a much stronger criticism section of the ROE. As the article stands, the ROE are described in terse, matter-of-fact, almost legalese language, and they are taken for granted as a positive (or at worst a neutral), an avant-garde, and a common-sensible policy. Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor" (The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10) provides a withering critique of America's rules of engagement from a professional soldier. "On a treeless mountainside [in Afghanistan] far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all." Diana West's Death by rules of engagement on "our outrageous rules of engagement" makes for interesting reading ("the SEALs … were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral"). DW's conclusion: "A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the 'unarmed civilians' they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival." Asteriks 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The present Rules of Engagement

The present ROE seem to have been written by the enemy for the enemy. It is plain to see that these ROE together with Sen. Murtha's ". . . bleed them white . . ." strategy, (the Senator's own words)is a dileberate attempt to cause as many american fatalities as possible in a War.

Our Congress has put our troops in and impossible situation, that when followed will get them killed and when the inevitable happens will have them charged with murder.

We need new definitions of what a declared WAR is so that the traitors in our government can be charged and removed. In ANY OTHER WAR the people behind this would be shot as the traitors they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.159.23 (talk) 16:29, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present ROE

The present ROE seem to have been written by Americas enemies, in that they put the soldiers in an impossible situation, a catch-22 if you will. If the rules are followed the soldiers can not shoot unless they have demonstraightable proof of the intent of their opponent. This, in a land where everyone has a gun, will be in the form of a bullet passing through the body of yourself or a team mate.

When you couple this with Sen. Murtha's "Bleed them white" policy that is designed to unfund the war. It becomes very clear just WHO the liberals in America are working for and its not the American people.

The Americans need to redefine the definition of a declared WAR so that people like Sen. Murtha and Sen. Reid can be charged as the Traitors they are.

Shogun459 16:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British ROE is off-topic.

The section about British ROE is somewhat off-topic. That section could be renamed "Definition of ROE" to make more sense--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

I thing that rules of engagement should be redirected to the disambiguation page, since most of the people who search it are looking for the show MakE (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)