Why the Current Politically Correct Rules of Engagement are Killing our Soldiers

As a soldier, first Army, then Navy, and eventually Navy SEAL, I understand the ugly nature of war. I understand that the enemy does not always follow the same rules and guidelines that you do as an American Soldier. However, as Americans, we hold ourselves to certain standards, and regardless of the illegal tactics practiced by the enemy, we must continue to hold ourselves to the standards and principles we expect of ourselves.

The insurgents in Iraq, and of Islamic terrorists overall, do not wear uniforms. They do not use any kind of formation. The fight like no other enemy we have ever faced. They are even more deceptive than what we faced in Vietnam. This current enemy uses unconventional techniques and tactics, move freely among the population of the community, and are even upstanding community members by day in many cases. This enemy is willing to do whatever it takes to kill American Soldiers. They routinely use children as human shields, as well as their women. In many cases they also coerce these same women and children into the service of their insurgency. Many of the guerillas in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting our soldiers were at once simply a mother or a child who wished to have nothing to do with the violence perpetrated by the insurgents.

Regardless, these people still hold weapons and still have them aimed at our soldiers. They are a threat, and as with any of the insurgents schooled by Islamic Terorism, they are determined to kill our young men and women in uniform.

This is an effective tactic, because by studying the American Soldier, the enemy has realized that American troops will go to great lengths to avoid killing women and children. In fact, not only based on the rules of engagement in place on our troops, but due to their sense of goodness and humanity, Americans will even hesitate at great risk to themselves to return fire when they see that the enemy firing upon them is women and children.

As Tom has so kindly pointed out, in August, the current rules of engagement in print indicate that, and this is a paraphrase of the entire authorization, that if the enemy has the intent to harm you and you recognize this intent based on your past experience as a soldier, then you may only then respond, with deadly force if necessary. In a sense, fire when fired upon, or you know that you will be fired upon.

However, those exact words above, as Tom pointed out, are not what is printed int eh official appendix, Rules of Engagement for U.S. Military Forces in Iraq." In fact, the exact wording is "Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces, and designated persons or property under your control." In other words, what I said above. The official rules of engagement also state "Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. Minimize collateral damage." Apparently the mainstream media trumps that one, because in Haditha the enemy was using civilian homes for their military purposes and those Marines felt they were in a position of needing to act in their self-defense, but because of the enemy's use of civilian shields and the coercian they used to get these civilians to also fire upon those Marines, that rule went out the window, and rather being thanked for killing the insurgents that were hiding among those civilians, they are being prosecuted for participating in a massacre. Notice the appendix does not indicate "No collateral damage allowed." It states to minimize collateral damage, which I believe our troops are attempting to do. However, when the enemy is interspersed with the population, collateral damage is an unfortunate result.

The appendix on the Rules of Engagement Tom so kindly made us all aware of is not the true rules of engagement, as limiting as it still is. The true rules of engagement are those rules applied on the ground. And the enemy is exploiting these rules.

“A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back,” says Cpl. Peter Mattice, of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. “In Fallujah, [insurgents] know our [rules of engagement] - they know when to stop, just before we engage.” Captain's Journal

While you are at it read THIS, Politically Correct Rules of Engagement endanger troops, and THIS, NCO's Speak on Rules of Engagement (notice the part where he indicates "there is a difference between written ROE (most of which the grunt is not allowed to read), and the implementation in the field." Also, read this: Snipers having tragic success against American Troops.

I understand that when you are out there in the field with your weapon in hand, and the enemy is present, and you know it, the last thing you need is the press, political correctness, or anything else to cause you to hesitate. Hesitation, in time of war, equals your death. The current rules of engagement, written and implied, are killing our soldiers.