Quote Originally Posted by Sparapet View Post
I have noticed quite frequently that ROE briefings are inconsistent. I would go as far as saying that SMs invariably look to their leaders for the "appropriate interpretation du jour". This tendency to interpret the ROEs rather than use them as your "range fans" (implying they are written to be clearly understood) is the issue that leads me to question the very purpose of modern ROEs. It's as if they are in an identity crisis between being a supplemental commander's intent, a standing order, or a legal obligation (I mean this in a sense outside of obeying orders...as in Law of War). A commander has decreasing discretion left to right on that scale.

Involving lawyers in the mix only confuses the issue further. Who do I ask about an ROE concern as a line leader: the Brigade/Division SJA or my immediate Commander? What possible opinion could the SJA provide that is of value beyond the question of law of war or UCMJ, unless the ROE is a legal obligation?

More importantly, if the ROE is a legal obligation beyond obeying orders (presumably then, an order violating the ROE would be an illegal order) why are so many ROE violations NOT resolved in Courts-Martial? Instead we see CYA maneuvers like the one in the OP that landed the Marine 1LT in the admin-slammer.

What the hell is an ROE when put up against Mission Command doctrine?!
In my narrow experiences, the ROE might as well be the law of God, since the operations in which I helped plan and participate had to be approved by the same authority that promulgated the ROE in the first place. If we didn't conform to the ROE in our operation, it was a non-starter, and there was no room for interpretation by anyone between levels of command. So in all cases in my experiences ROE superseded mission command doctrine every time, which left us with few (and very ineffective) opportunities since ROE is not METT-TC dependent.