What Are They Supposed to Use?
Harsh language? Let’s just make it even tougher on the kids in Iraq, why don’t we?
While American civilians and politicians debate when and whether to withdraw troops from Iraq, the buzz among some military lawyers has been a recent Pentagon rule change that they say potentially limits service members’ ability to defend themselves.
In June, the Pentagon changed its Standing Rules of Engagement to allow commanders to limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Interpreted for me by two Army judge advocate general officers (JAGs), this essentially means that soldiers and Marines may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury. That belongs only to commanders, who may not be present to make a decision every time a soldier or Marine faces a deadly threat.
Whose side are we on anyway? And why, if this happened in June, are we just hearing about it?
Military Thingies | Mr. Bingley | 
December 4, 2005 3:35 pm
Subscribe
My lord, what’s next?
This is sick!
Some of us are old enough to remeber similar ROE in Lebanon back in ’83 – and the result as well.
A warm Swill welcome, OldCrow! And I know exactly what you’re talking about. Exactly.
All I can remember is the anguished Marine guarding the entrance to the Marine Barracks
in Lebanon. He could see the truck bomber’s face as he burst through the checkpoint,
but couldn’t load his M-16 fast enough to kill him. They were allowed to have loaded
magazines, but they had to be in their belt ~ not their rifles. Such good intentions
cost us dearly that evil day.