Rules Of Engagement and "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell

LtStryker

Active member
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.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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..
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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:???:
 
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.
 
I honestly feel that no military leader or philosper in the many past centuries could have ever imagined the media complex we have today.

I am pretty certain that Sun Tzu never accounted that the Average American would have the MSNBC AP on their Iphone to remind them of every time an NATO airstrike goes off course.


One of the problems I believe is that in an accelerated society, that media, and moral apsects of the world we live in are accelerating and evolving at a much faster pace than warefare itself.

Yes, the tools of war have changed as well as the tactics, especially in the last century, but it's still the same premise, people killing people for whatever disagreance.

That is what I believe as far as the knee jerk reaction that the public it seems is trained to have when a civilian is killed in Afghanistan from a Coalition engagment.

Hence why these "rules' are in place.

Honestly I doubt the premise of warefare will ever catch up with other preceptions of human development, because it's so fundementally ingrained with our biology.
 
Last edited:
I think that certain times call for different rules of engagement, I think that sometimes the US has had a very robust ROE, I can recall watching a documentary called "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" - there was one scene in that film which shocked me. The film makers were interviewing a former rear gunner of a Chinook - he told them that he asked his CO and squad members what were the rules of engagement, their response was "If it looks like the enemy, shoot it." That really blew my mind. Really? "If it looks like the enemy, shoot it."?

That being said, there was controversy in Northern Ireland surrounding a so-called "Shoot to Kill" policy, where British Army and Special Forces soldiers had supposedly been given orders to shoot to kill the IRA, rather than arrest them.

Firstly, these are Special Forces, not squaddies - at the point when they are brought in, they're not there to arrest terrorists (although one exception would have been the Peterhead Prison siege.)

Secondly, there was a massively controversial issue again in Gibraltar in the 1988 (Operation Flavius), the SAS was sent in to arrest a Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) cell, thereby stopping them from attacking the Changing of the Guard ceremony at the Governor's Residence on The Rock. Their targets were Danny McCann, Sean Savage and Mairead Farrel. Their orders regarding engagement were thus: "Open fire against a person [only] if you or they have reasonable grounds for believing that he/she is currently committing, or is about to commit, an action which endangers your or their lives, or the life of any other person, and if there is no other way to prevent this.

The SAS were observing their targets, actually by walking behind them. When they saw that McCann was making an aggressive move toward a bag that he was carrying, they killed him. At that moment, they also saw that Mairead Farrel was reaching for something in her handbag, she too was killed. The third man, Sean Savage, made a move for something in his pocket - he too was shot and killed.

These are just two examples of the rules of engagement and how right, or wrong they might be. Heading back to America and their military's ROE... I read an article in the BBC not too long ago, which talked about a US Kill Team, which went around targeting persons, that is a MASSIVE breakdown in the Chain of Command, not to mention that it makes the US military look like a bunch of 'Yee-Ha-Oops' cowboys.

Anyway, I completely agree with KJ's assessment of Rules of Engagement.
 
I think that certain times call for different rules of engagement, I think that sometimes the US has had a very robust ROE, I can recall watching a documentary called "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" - there was one scene in that film which shocked me. The film makers were interviewing a former rear gunner of a Chinook - he told them that he asked his CO and squad members what were the rules of engagement, their response was "If it looks like the enemy, shoot it." That really blew my mind. Really? "If it looks like the enemy, shoot it."?

I doubt those were the rules of engagement and that whole scenario . Everyone is Briefed on what the rules are so the gunner would not need to ask. Anyway that isn't necessarily a bad set of Rules. If it looks like a threat shoot it ie is armed and behaving in a threatening manner.

That being said, there was controversy in Northern Ireland surrounding a so-called "Shoot to Kill" policy, where British Army and Special Forces soldiers had supposedly been given orders to shoot to kill the IRA, rather than arrest them.
Well having read accounts by people who actually did the business. They stressed that where a hard arrest was the plan. They took extreme measures to carry out an arrest. But seeing as they were being sent after the most dangerous and violent people it isn't surprising the people they were after made an arrest impossible. Many would prefer to die fighting. There probably was targeted killings carried out against the IRA. The SAS are strategic troops used for strategic purposes. The killed people for "big picture" reasons. Killing people who were stood in the way of the peace process. Who were perpetuating the cycle of violence.

The SAS were observing their targets, actually by walking behind them. When they saw that McCann was making an aggressive move toward a bag that he was carrying, they killed him. At that moment, they also saw that Mairead Farrel was reaching for something in her handbag, she too was killed. The third man, Sean Savage, made a move for something in his pocket - he too was shot and killed.
Weren't the SAS worried they were trying to trigger a an explosive device?

These are just two examples of the rules of engagement and how right, or wrong they might be. Heading back to America and their military's ROE... I read an article in the BBC not too long ago, which talked about a US Kill Team, which went around targeting persons, that is a MASSIVE breakdown in the Chain of Command, not to mention that it makes the US military look like a bunch of 'Yee-Ha-Oops' cowboys.
How is it a breakdown in command? People are targeted for strategic reasons kill person 'a' so that event X,Y,Z doesn't occur Etc etc



What people always seem to forget is that people die in a war. People are sought out and killed. Just because you come to them and not them to you doesn't make the action wrong. Just because you identify a person as someone who is an enemy and is worth killing, doeskin mean that it was wrong to kill them. I am sure if the SAS turn up and the target is there clearly surrendering they wont kill them but they may just as well kill them before they get the chance. They have picked aside they, present a threat not directly but their existence facilitates violence against your side. the person who opposes us knows the score.

Why do we find it necessary to defend him? He doesn't expect that from you.


If anything what needs to be scrutinized is how a target is identified not the SF people sent in to do the business .
 
Last edited:
What people always seem to forget is that people die in a war.

That one phrase alone sparks a myraid of topic regarding the practices of our morally labeling media outlets.

Sometimes I honestly feel people are far to good at listening these days, so many people just don't think anymore.
 
avatar3.jpg
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.
It’s very simple.
What is and isn’t permitted is outlined in the international conventions
 
EVERY SINGLE US SOLDIER HAS THE ROE ON THEIR PERSONS WHILE IN A COMBAT ZONE. Sorry about the shouting, but it really irritates me when people try to sell a bill of goods about the US military by portraying the 5% of jackasses that is present in EVERY population.

Yes, the US employs hunter killer teams. We target bad guys. I have personally been on these missions and if the people were doing what they were supposed to, then there was no problems. If they were setting up rails for rocket launchers or planting IEDs then we plugged them. If they were carrying weapons on their person outside of the AK, like the SVD, RPG, or RPK then yes, we plugged them. If their cars are riding low to the ground and they are erratically and speedily approaching a checkpoint, then we plugged them.

The ROE states we are permitted, if nothing else, to protect ourselves. I specifically remember an instance on this last deployment when the ROE changed. We were looking for guys that were shooting indirect fire at our COS. We were informed via BFT that we were not to kill them if they were observed conducting this hostile act. We were first to attempt to capture. It blew my mind. We were rolling in neighborhoods where the streets were almost as narrow as our vehicles were wide. Power lines prevented any type of speed to get to these guys because they were strewn throughout the entire city like spider webs from one house to another 6 to 10 15 feet off the ground. They operated on motorcycles and cabs, we were in 25 ton beheamoths that were slow and cumbersome. It didn't take long for the ROE to change back to killing these guys but the fact remains that they can change from super conservative to relatively liberal on a commanders whim.

It all boils down to hostile intent and hostile acts against me, my men, or members of the civilian population. We do have escalation of force procedures to try to prevent death if possible. The thing is, it can take half a second to go through the escalation of force because sometimes that's how fast things happen. To the untrained eye, it may appear as if we shot first. To the trained eye, one would be able to observe several specific steps that were taken to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
 
Sometimes the ROE collides with your own ethics and morals. Then you have to be the Professional but it's not always easy. Let me give you an example.

We were on a surveillance mission and the monitored were members of the former Baath party. We knew they were pro-Saddam and had been involved in arms smuggling. We saw no evidence of their activities but another part of the Iraqi culture. I was deeply shocked, although I had heard about it. In my night vision binoculars, I saw and filmed an adult man on the roof of the building who had **** sex with a young boy who was no more than one eight nine years old. I was so furious that I had the greatest desire to order this perverted pig shot down. Unfortunately, the mission outweighed an assault on a little boy. It was almost impossible to continue with the job the next day when you wanted to kill for another reason.
 
Last edited:
Firm believer in RAMP, right here:

Return fire with well-aimed fire. Return force with force. You always have the right to repel hostile acts with necessary force.
Anticipate attack. Use force first if, but only if, you see clear indicators of hostile intent.


  • S ize How many individuals are you facing?
  • A ctivity What is he doing? Pointing a weapon?
  • L ocation Is he within small arms range? In a prepared firing position? Has he entered a restricted area?
  • U nit Is he wearing a uniform? Part of an organized armed force?
  • T ime How soon before he is upon you?
  • E quipment Is he armed? With what? What are the range and lethality of his weapon?
Measure the amount of force that you use, if time and circumstances permit. Use only the amount of force necessary to protect lives and accomplish the mission.


  • V erbal Warning. Tell person(s), in their language, to disperse, stay away, or halt
  • E xhibit Weapon. Show your weapon or use some other display that shows you have superior force at your disposal.
  • W arning Shot. Shoot a warning shot, if authorized. Caution: Warning shots may be interpreted as incoming fire by the person you are trying to "warn" away.
  • P epper Spray. Spray cayenne pepper spray, if authorized and available, and the individual is close enough.
  • R iot Stick. Strike with riot stick, if authorized and available, and if the individual is close enough. Poke fleshy parts of the body first, arms and legs next, and if necessary, escalate to striking the head.
  • I njure with Fire. Shoot to wound.
  • K ill with Fire. Shoot to kill.
Protect with deadly force only human life and property designated by your commander. Stop short of deadly force when protecting other property.
Idiots who think war is like being a gang-banger, and shooting anyone or anything that looks reasonably "enemy-like" think that they are accomplishing something, when instead, they invariably make things infinitely worse -- if not for themselves, for the poor SOBs who have to walk in after they leave, and try to clean up the mess they left.

Playing "shoot'em-up" with the local landscape destroys not only your own security, it harms the mission, your legitimacy (as an individual, a supposed-professional, and as a human being) -- in effect, if you think you are protecting yourself, you are actually making your situation vastly more dangerous, as well as utterly pointless, when the legitimacy of the entire reason for you being in "Place X" is rendered invalid and/or moot by the actions of a bunch of wannabe Bloods/Crops/[insert street gang here] who think they are Soldiers/Marines/etc...

...It has been said that there are no bad troops, only bad leaders -- clearly, the beatings were suspended far too early.
 
Sometimes the ROE collides with your own ethics and morals. Then you have to be the Professional but it's not always easy. Let me give you an example.

We were on a surveillance mission and the monitored were members of the former Baath party. We knew they were pro-Saddam and had been involved in arms smuggling. We saw no evidence of their activities but another part of the Iraqi culture. I was deeply shocked, although I had heard about it. In my night vision binoculars, I saw and filmed an adult man on the roof of the building who had **** sex with a young boy who was no more than one eight nine years old. I was so furious that I had the greatest desire to order this perverted pig shot down. Unfortunately, the mission outweighed an assault on a little boy. It was almost impossible to continue with the job the next day when you wanted to kill for another reason.
I now know that this is a true story. It was performed by Danish SF (Jägerkopset). How do I know?

Because it is described in the Danish book "Jäger 200" by a former Danish Jäger (Lars Möller)

This gives us three options:

1. Lars Möller and you are the same person.

2. You were part of this team.

3. You're full of it.

I´m inclined to the last option.
I call BS here!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top