I will provide some ground truth on this as I was there when this was presented to the task force commanders in Regional Command South.

This does not mean that soldiers are expected to simply "take one for the team." A better example is one I personally know of where a SEAL patrol with their ANA partners entered a village and a small engagement ensued with 2-3 insurgent fighters. Two were put down quickly, and one turned and ran. The SEAL nearest to the man was within every aspect of the ROE and the tactical directive at that point in time to simply kill the runner. Instead he took off after him, ran him down and tackled him, taking him prisoner. It is this type of assumption of greater personal risk in the name of avoiding potentially avoidable casualties that is at the essence of "courageous restraint."

To be honest, this resonates better with the British military than it does with the Americans. The Americans see more utility in simply ensuring that you have your most experienced decision maker at the most likely critical time and place; and to ensure that you have worked through situational pre-combat drills to wargame in advance likely dangers and how to best address them within the tactical directives and guidelines for the escalation of force.


I guess the key is that the Commanders are recognizing that there is valor in protecting the mission, just as there is in protecting one’s self and fellow soldiers.