You're a better man than I...
I'm not a better man than you - though probably more patient. Sometimes, I'm a dumb kid who needs a kick out the door to fly and explore new vistas.

Anyway, the SROE training probably gets near the same point which would be reached by correctly training under a "find, fix, kill" syllogism. Under SROE, I'd guess that a few more Alis and Omars will survive - at the cost of a few more Willies and Joes who won't (a result which revolts me). No way to test that hypothesis, I know.

In operating environments where hostiles are difficult to distinguish from non-hostiles (Vietnam to present), the "find, fix, kill" syllogism would require even more training - and discernment (right down to the Willie & Joe level). You have an infinitely better grasp of that than I - so, correct if wrong.

The basis premise of SROE (and the resultant philosophy it spawns) is that the default is defensive and passive. You are the hunted, rather than the hunter. That seems to me the wrong default for a military force because it concedes the offensive to the bad guys.

So, my default would be wartime rules, going to gendarmerie rules when the situation required them. I think I understand the basic premise of SROE; but I cannot accept it.

Just because you are a hunter doesn't mean that you kill everthing in the woods. In fact, even though "armed for bear", you might just want to observe - and talk to a coyote if you have a chance (been there, done that - a greater coup than shooting him - done that, been there - and more enlightening). Context and discernment.

Thanks for the help, in this and other places.