gtmeouttahere said:
I agree Nords for the most part...But, can you expand on the comment "the rules of engagement have become much clearer than they used to be." I feel conflicted...
Gosh, does this mean I get to tell sea stories? OK! Either you're a veteran and you know what I mean by that ROE comment, or you're not and you're blissfully ignorant.
In 1983 the Marines in Lebanon were "living" in a building below a ridgeline that was popular with the local insurgents. The sentries were regularly taking fire from the ridge but according to the rules of engagement put out for that situation they weren't allowed to occupy it (too provocative) or shoot back (too offensive). In fact the sentries weren't even allowed to have ammunition loaded in their weapons because, as one alleged Marine said to the press, "They might shoot somebody."
I spent the better part of four days on a pier in Rota, Spain talking with Marines & sailors of that task force. Let's just say that they'd lost their faith in the judgment of the senior leadership. It made a pretty big impression on a young ensign.
In Kosovo the patrolling soldiers could load up but they weren't allowed to shoot at anyone who targeted them (pointed a gun barrel at them or even shot overhead). Instead they were required to report back to their command post, explain the situation, and await clarification. One legal officer writing in the US Naval Institute's "Proceedings" magazine walked his readers through the entire ROE procedure for this situation and determined that an optimal response would take at least 15 minutes to decide whether the soldier could shoot back.
The situation has achieved more clarity in Iraq. It's pretty clear to the populace that if you point a weapon at an American then you will be shot. Self defense is finally becoming the top priority that it should be.
I think that we're also approaching a "tipping point" for yet another ROE overhaul... maybe the biggest one since Vietnam. One task force or one battalion can't do much to change the status quo. When, however, every active-duty officer and most of the Reservists have been in or near a combat zone and have gone on to a headquarters assignment, changes will follow.
In the 1990s PACOM used to be a sleepy little place where people went to await retirement. Today it's a seething cauldron of vicious competition to "break out" for promotion. When ROE debates arose there in the early 90s, they'd be "studied" for about three years. Today spouse tells me of meetings where an O-5, recently returned from Iraq, won't hesitate to stand up in a public meeting, point at his combat infantry badge or his campaign ribbons, and use strong words at senior officers to describe the quality of "their" ROE.
So the changes are going through fairly quickly to "support the troops". I just hope that the incident investigations focus on where & how the decisions were made instead of deciding that the ROE needs to be changed.
