Restrictive "Rules of Engagement" and the Western tribalism.

[former_0302]

Interesting thesis. However, in turning this concept around in my brain, I think I should play a bit of a devil's advocate.

I keep coming back to the idea that, even under liberal ROEs, there are still people on a battlefield that should not get engaged. Civilians, noncombatants of various stripes, blue forces, green forces, etc. Wouldn't you say that soldiers and Marines are pretty much always making a determination as to who he should or should not shoot? More restrictive ROEs only mean that another layer (or two or three or...) of discernment about the potential target has to take place. Admittedly, each additional layer is a stressor all unto itself, and they probably combine together exponentially vice linearly... but I'm not really sure that the ultimate responsibility for pulling a trigger in war is ever anywhere except on the soldier or Marine doing it. Particularly since Vietnam, because we all volunteered to go there.

I have friends for whom this is a real problem, so I applaud your efforts here. Good luck.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Former_0302,

You are absolutely correct that Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and even Drone Pilots are always making determinations on when to shoot when non-combatants are on the field of battle. The responsibility is always a personal one. You are also correct that quantifying the apprehension before the shot and/or the feeling of responsibility after the shot, whether linear or exponetial, will be difficult to do.

There are also multiple layers that complicate the question:

1. Modern American society has a culture of individual responsibility versus collective guilt. Where some cultures would have no problem taking revenge on any member of a group for an injustice committed by one of them, Americans tend to want to single out the responsible party. This is different from a "Fueding" society - think Hatfields and McCoys. Killing any McCoy is suitable retribution for a McCoys attack on any Hatfield. Most Americans would not agree with that, but that is exactly what the "us" and "them" distinguishment allowsfor (or even condones). So, perhaps it is easier for an American individualist to kill where he or she can see for themselves the danger posed by the enemy as opposed to simply killing a boy dressed in an enemy uniform that poses no threat. (think about the scene in Band of Brothers where the LT runs across the field and climbs a berm to see a boy in a German Uniform taking a piss, and promptly shoots him.)

2. Does the fact that the Command Structure has not celarly idedentified the "them" that are the enemy allow the Soldiers to create their own version of the "them"? The best case of this is Mai Lai, but in modern time I would say that this allows Soldiers and Marines to see enemy in places where they would not exist under other ROE.

Any other thoughts you have on these or related topics, especially devil's advocate type comments, will be greatly appreciated. I only have one or two voices in my head to talk to, so any additional points of view are always apprecieated.

If you have any suggestions on material I could use, I would also greatly appreciate those.