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.