Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops

[Synicus Maximus]

Source: NPR

As part of the new American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines must work first to protect the Afghan population. Given the choice between killing the enemy or risking civilian lives, they have been willing to let the enemy go. NPR's Tom Bowman was in Afghanistan earlier this year and witnessed troops grappling with the dilemma of whether to shoot.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893

[Goldstein1984]

1. Here we go again...

Complicated rules of engagement...

Can't tell the good guys from the bad guys...

Corrupt government...

Frustrated soldiers...

No clear objectives...

Enemies hiding over the border...

Difficult terrain...

Majority of Americans against the war...

Anybody thinking Vietnam yet?

[mbperrin]

4. I thought it from the moment Booosh said we were going.

No outside occupying force anywhere anytime has ever won a war. Period.

Good to know that no one's actually been killed, though, on either side. Right?

[Bigmack]

5. Vietghanistan.... nt

[DissedByBush]

2. So much for those who say we like to wantonly murder civilians

Some of our soldiers have probably died due to the care we take not to cause civilian casualties.

[Goldstein1984]

7. Except when we're using Predator drones

They take out a few dozen civilians every time they take out a few combatants

[ManiacJoe]

3. Sounds like the marines need to work on their

decision making skills. Based on the facts as presented in the posted interview, the helos should have been able to open fire.

[Bigmack]

6. You are being just a little...

"fast on the trigger". They're trying not to kill civilians. Machine guns are not precision weapons, and the rounds skip a lot.

They know where the bomb is, and the guys planting them will be back. Then they might have a clean shot.

If they kill civilians, they get all those wonderful nightmares in later life... oh.... and the civilians hate them worse. If that's possible.

Rules of Engagement are really difficult. Shoot to quick, and you get fratricide and dead civilians. Shoot too late, and you get dead Marines.

Fire discipline is the name of the game.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Good to see that we are all on the same page.

According to the data in the article, using the helos on the insurgents met the ROE. If the marines do not have the appropriate weapons for the situation, they need to be making some quick calls to the quarter master.

[T Wolf]

8. Maybe if we fought more wars HERE, we would know how to avoid collateral damage, AND wars. nt

[DallasNE]

9. Take A Closer Look

This looks like a wrong weapons problem masquerading as a rules of engagement problem.

The relatively slow moving noisy helicopter gave the insurgents ample time to blend back into the country side. A drone with a laser-guided smart bomb would have had the element of surprise because they fly so high and can't be seen or heard. Perhaps they don't currently have enough drones there yet to operate in this manner but that is a policy problem far removed from the rules of engagement. We need to fight smarter, not harder and stop blaming the rules of engagement. The commander that called in the wrong weapon is the problem. They need to think rather than blame.

[JonLP24]

10. A common saying in the Army

was "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

Now with all this focus on Afghanistan I can't tell you anything about it because I never been. In Iraq you never knew who the enemy is. Luckily in transportation I never personally was faced with this dilemma but it was very clear. (example)--Shout(get back), show(present weapon), shove(grab, push), shoot. My memory is a bit rusty hear but I believe if it goes into the shove area or maybe show than you could shoot but I can't quite remember. Pretty much with the gun trucks they way it went down is if someone was shooting than they fired back.