Afghanistan ROE Change

[jmm99]

from Cavguy
As a final note, although this thread started with the title ROE, we are really talking RUF - Rules for use of Force, which can be more restrictive than ROE. ROE in a legal way hasn't changed, and doesn't really cover specific weapons systems. It's more general. GEN McChrystal is changing the theater guidance for RUF. There is more than a semantic difference.

JP 1-04 (pp.73, 72):

rules of engagement. Directives issued by competent military authority that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered. Also called ROE. (JP 1-02)
....
rules for the use of force. Directives issued to guide United States forces on the use of force during various operations. These directives may take the form of execute orders, deployment orders, memoranda of agreement, or plans. Also called RUF. (JP 1-02)

Explanatory article, ROE vs RUF in Marine Corps Gazette (linked from SWJ Library).

Because RUF generally assume a nonhostile host with a generally friendly population, RUF primarily focus on using force in self-defense as a matter of force protection based on mere presence—rather than an assigned operational mission—or using force in the exercise of a very limited law enforcement or security mission. ROE policy concerns tend to focus on relations with foreign actors and furthering international political objectives. RUF policy concerns tend to focus on domestic or host-nation political objectives and domestic or host-nation public opinion.

I find the distinction between ROE (in foreign ops) and RUF (in domestic ops) to be pretty straight-forward. Where the two are both programmed into the same operation (as JP 1-04 allows or requires ?), I understand the definitions ("will" vs "guide" ?), but do not really understand the possible implementations.