Rules of Engagement for Conscience and Sense

[Stan]

I think, most importantly, ROE must "make sense" at the grunt level, and changes must be "sold" to the troops.

120's got a painful point ! Just how would we go about explaining to the E5 taking mortar rounds, that although you can see them and they're in you sights, you can't fire. What ?

Regards, Stan

[SWJED]

120's got a painful point ! Just how would we go about explaining to the E5 taking mortar rounds, that although you can see them and they're in you sights, you can't fire. What ?

Regards, Stan

In some cases the adversary is shooting and scooting and all you will do is ensure collateral damage that creates 10 insurgents for any 1 you might get lucky and kill. Like I said, in some cases, everything is situational dependent - but to just make a blanket statement that anyone taking mortar rounds should return in kind - all the time - defeats much of what we have learned over the last several years - and forgot over the last several decades.

[Stan]

In some cases the adversary is shooting and scooting and all you will do is ensure collateral damage that creates 10 insurgents for any 1 you might get lucky and kill. Like I said, in some cases, everything is situational dependent - but to just make a blanket statement that anyone taking mortar rounds should return in kind - all the time - defeats much of what we have learned over the last several years - and forgot over the last several decades.

Thanks Colonel !
I spent some time reading your recent interview, and I agree collateral damage in the E5's case would have merely created another 10 insurgents, and maybe one dead.

I didn't mean, she should have gone full auto and sprayed the surrounding area, but then how would one write the ROE regarding the use of "semi-auto, carefully-placed rounds" while being showered in mortar fire ?

Point well taken !
Regards, Stan

[SWJED]

Thanks Colonel !
I spent some time reading your recent interview, and I agree collateral damage in the E5's case would have merely created another 10 insurgents, and maybe one dead.

I didn't mean, she should have gone full auto and sprayed the surrounding area, but then how would one write the ROE regarding the use of "semi-auto, carefully-placed rounds" while being showered in mortar fire ?

Point well taken !
Regards, Stan

Stan - that was me - Dave, not John Nagl, but glad you agree

[Stan]

Stan - that was me - Dave, not John Nagl, but glad you agree

Sorry Dave !
I am not trying to take sides RE - ROE. I know how to place single shots from a model 1911 (the same Colt Commanders model I carried when I was Tom's NCO in Africa) and I also know who is the most important in a mortar team, should I need to take one or two out without wasting ammo.

I am having a relatively hard time thinking as an NCO, how I would now explain 120's situation to that very same E5.

Yes, I was also an E5 once (thank God).

Regards, Stan

[Bill Moore]

Unless something has changed the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) are still in effect worldwide, which means a U.S. soldier, marine, etc. can take the appropriate self defense measures, so if the mortar fire was effective, the E-5 had legal authority to engage the mortar team. Judgment must be pushed to the soldier in the fight, not the TOC where staff officers can only speculate on what is actually happening on the ground.

If you want avoid the kill one insurgent, then create 10 effect, then you need to train your soldiers before you deploy them on the nuances of this type of fight. You have no right to try to control it from the TOC. This is why we have SROE to begin with, to keep chicken little from getting American fighting mena and women killed.

[Stan]

Thanks Bill !!!
I had a hard time with this. I can only imagine what the E5 was going through, hiding and waiting for an "ROE-approved" way out. Preposturous comes to mind

[BMT]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...680r_page2.htm


BMT