Rules Of Engagement and "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell




 
--
 
February 28th, 2012  
LtStryker
 
 

Topic: Rules Of Engagement and "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell


I recently read the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell. I was both impressed by the discipline of Marcus and his buddies and horrified by the loss of the team and rescuers. My question is who agrees with the current ROEs of the U.S. military, and if not what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.
February 28th, 2012  
Jay
 
 
in the current situation, or for that matter in any military situation, shoot first ask questions later, thats the only way to prevent casualties. it's a load of **** that the U.S. forces in Iraq can watch a potential terrorist leave a backpack on the side of the road containing an IED and are not allowed to shoot on sight, what's preventing him from just doing it again, the united state's 'were better because were more humane' argument is killing the soldiers of this nation!
February 29th, 2012  
LtStryker
 
 
I agree that our humanitarian policies often cause american soldiers to die, and as the kind of person I am that outrages me more than I can say. I am interested in finding other opinions and looking at alternatives to the current policy. I am annoyed that the liberal media crucifies soldiers who kill a couple of afghanis in order to save his team, and then also attacks soldiers who do not step up and defend their men. Does anyone have any thoughts on media effects as well?
--
February 29th, 2012  
KJ
 
 
Well to give some sort of balanced opinion..

The ROE,s are clear and in most scenarios adequit.
If it shoots at you, you are allowed to use deadly force.
If it is armed and a danger to you or your men you are allowed to use deadly force.

If someone forget/leaves/throws a backpack by the road, how are you supposed to know what is in it and if it poses a threat to you?

There is a reason why there are rules to warfare.
Frustrating sometimes? Sure.
But as a proffessional you are used to it and can handle it.

If you want to be safe all the time, go work at Burger King..

KJ sends..
February 29th, 2012  
42RM
 
Some day you will gain wisdom, my young friends!
February 29th, 2012  
brinktk
 
 
It's easy to kill everything on site. It also was expected and effective in times past where you were fighting a uniformed enemy on a battlefield largely devoud of civilians. That is no longer the case. We are engaged in COIN and if we expect to not only be effective, but win, we have to show restraint where our enemies do not. A COIN fight in not about killing the enemy. A COIN fight is about getting the civilian either on your side or to a point where they can defend themselves...hard to do if you're killing them every time you open fire.

It's like KJ said, we're professionals...if you want to act like some two bit militia then move to the back woods of Montana and join up. If you want to act like a professional, then quit your complaining and accept that this is what must be done to save more lives in the long run. If you don't like that then think about another profession.
February 29th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Anyone can pull a trigger. No training required, no skill, no thought.
It takes skill, judgement and experience knowing when not to open fire.
And yes, it does make us better than them and yes it does give us the moral high ground!
February 29th, 2012  
LtStryker
 
 
My problem is that the moral high ground that you speak of causes our troops to be killed when the opponents disguise themselves as civilians. When the enemy looks like the people we are protecting sometimes we end up trying to protect the people who are trying to kill us. The terrorists are not stupid. They know that we are not allowed to kill a person just for having an AK because AKs are a dime a dozen over there, but if a group of them comes charging over a hill firing RPGs and other weapons we will slaughter them. So they disguise themselves as the civilians we are not supposed to kill and kill us while we are searching for the obvious threats. I do not feel that we should kill everything in sight. To be completely honest, I think that we are fighting the wrong kind of war. We are trying to fight a war of heavy firepower against a group who is fighting through stealth and speed. We should increase Special Ops presence over there and decrease conventional numbers.
February 29th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LtStryker
My problem is that the moral high ground that you speak of causes our troops to be killed when the opponents disguise themselves as civilians. When the enemy looks like the people we are protecting sometimes we end up trying to protect the people who are trying to kill us. The terrorists are not stupid. They know that we are not allowed to kill a person just for having an AK because AKs are a dime a dozen over there, but if a group of them comes charging over a hill firing RPGs and other weapons we will slaughter them. So they disguise themselves as the civilians we are not supposed to kill and kill us while we are searching for the obvious threats. I do not feel that we should kill everything in sight. To be completely honest, I think that we are fighting the wrong kind of war. We are trying to fight a war of heavy firepower against a group who is fighting through stealth and speed. We should increase Special Ops presence over there and decrease conventional numbers.
Go back in time, Vietnam, exactly the same thing happened there.
If there is a solution to this issue, well cleverer buggers than you and me still haven't figured it out
February 29th, 2012  
muscogeemike
 
I had my first tour to Korea shortly after Carters disastrous presidency. The confusion was such that a soldier had no idea of how he was to react to N. Korean provocation.
The new CO of the 2 Inf Div (I believe it was Gen Emerson (the “Gunfighter”))immediately issued new ROEs - the end of each rule was either “shoot them” or “kill them“.
There was no more confusion.