Posted on Feb 17, 2015
Do you believe there are too many Rules of Engagement?
7.33K
20
11
5
5
0
I do believe that there are way to many Rules of Engagement. I know that we have to be held to a higher standard but when know targets that cause mass destruction and terror can be taken out. ehhhhhhh
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
UCMJ
Rules
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
I agree, Cpl Clinton Britt. I just finished "American Sniper" (the book), and Chris Kyle felt he was hamstrung by the RoE he had to abide by. I think we, as Americans, are sometimes too careful on this front. And that can cost lives.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
I've thought quite a bit about Rules of Engagement over the years, and have come to the conclusion that they may be important in certain situations, but are a "high water indicator" of when the United States needs to exit a given conflict.
The United States Military is simply not equipped or designed to act as a "police force", and when Rules of Engagement start coming into play that's usually the role that we are trying to fill.
Nobody in their right mind would hand a 19 year old with less than a year of training an assault rifle and ask him to go patrol the streets of Dallas... the results are predictable, and to an extent historic (I'm thinking Kent State, Ohio).
Add to that the mentality of a civilian population that has been programmed by a dictator for a generation to hate Americans and you simply have a recipe for disaster.
Insurgents hide behind Rules of Engagement in order to kill more Americans, and frustration prompts the American to break the Rule of Engagement, which prompts politicians to write stricter Rules of engagement, which gives the insurgents something new to hide behind.
It's a loose, loose catch-22 situation.
The American Military should be tasked with doing what it does best... destroying a nation's ability to wage war. "Peacekeeping" and "Nation-building" should be left to the United Nations with the U.S. military waiting in the wings to turn non-compliance into a smoking hole.
The United States Military is simply not equipped or designed to act as a "police force", and when Rules of Engagement start coming into play that's usually the role that we are trying to fill.
Nobody in their right mind would hand a 19 year old with less than a year of training an assault rifle and ask him to go patrol the streets of Dallas... the results are predictable, and to an extent historic (I'm thinking Kent State, Ohio).
Add to that the mentality of a civilian population that has been programmed by a dictator for a generation to hate Americans and you simply have a recipe for disaster.
Insurgents hide behind Rules of Engagement in order to kill more Americans, and frustration prompts the American to break the Rule of Engagement, which prompts politicians to write stricter Rules of engagement, which gives the insurgents something new to hide behind.
It's a loose, loose catch-22 situation.
The American Military should be tasked with doing what it does best... destroying a nation's ability to wage war. "Peacekeeping" and "Nation-building" should be left to the United Nations with the U.S. military waiting in the wings to turn non-compliance into a smoking hole.
(4)
(0)
SSG Jess Peters
Kent state is a poor example. Poorly trained and poorly led. Scared and having stones and bottles thrown at them. Though tragic, they were not completely at fault.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
SSG Jess Peters exactly my point... the typical soldier is no better trained to “de-escalate” a situation than the guardsmen at Kent state.
Once we’ve destroyed a nation’s ability to wage war, we really have three choices, turn them into allies (Germany and Japan post WWII), Colonize, or genocide.
The first option requires skills the typical soldier doesn’t have, the second two... not “socially acceptable”.
Once we’ve destroyed a nation’s ability to wage war, we really have three choices, turn them into allies (Germany and Japan post WWII), Colonize, or genocide.
The first option requires skills the typical soldier doesn’t have, the second two... not “socially acceptable”.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Absolutely too many rule. Should only be one rule of engagement... Accomplish the mission.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay
War is war, Hell is Hell. Consider what Hawkeye said in the TV series MASH. Truly war should be the last resort
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
It's always been my opinion that we shouldn't start a war unless we are willing to kill every oscillating Richard that stands in the way. I tend to agree with Curtis Lemay, "If you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much; you'll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy's too.".
Would we have saved lives in Iraq if we had reduced Fallujah and Sadr City into a big, smoking rubble the first time there was trouble?
Would we have saved lives in Iraq if we had reduced Fallujah and Sadr City into a big, smoking rubble the first time there was trouble?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google