By-the-Bye, OUR Rules
In order to ensure that the additional combat troops being deployed to Iraq can achieve their objectives, we must change the current restrictive rules of engagement (ROEs) under which they are forced to operate. The current ROEs for Baghdad — including Sadr City, home of the Mahdi Army — have seven incremental steps that must be satisfied before our troops can take the gloves off and engage the enemy with appropriate violence of action.
(1) You must feel a direct threat to you or your team.
(2) You must clearly see a threat.
(3) That threat must be identified.
(4) The team leader must concur that there is an identified threat.
(5) The team leader must feel that the situation is one of life or death.
(6) There must be minimal or no collateral risk.
(7) Only then can the team leader clear the engagement.These ROEs might sound fine to academics gathering at some esoteric seminar on how to avoid civilian casualties in a war zone. But they do absolutely nothing to protect our combat troops who have to respond in an instant to a life or death situation.
If our soldiers or Marines see someone about to level an AK-47 in their direction or start to are receive hostile fire from a rooftop or mosque, there is no time to go through a seven-point checklist before reacting. Indeed, the very fact that they see a weapon, or begin to receive hostile fire should be sufficient justification to respond with deadly force.
I feel better already.
Where’s my sandal?
Military Thingies | tree hugging sister | 
January 26, 2007 12:12 pm
Subscribe
Those were not the ROE when I was there and I seriously doubt these are accurate. The ROE are classified.
Considering it came in major dad’s e-bird this morning, Mike, I have to think there’s more than a just a nod to truth there.
Well, never doubt the e-bird!!
Mike that came from an op-ed piece by ret Admiral James A Lyons Jr. It was in todays E-bird.
Oh Mike, you sarcastic little poophead.
Never completely dismiss the e-bird.
can you flip someone an e-bird?
Check your monitor.
Actually, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic, but you make me wish that I had!
{8^P
So, its “esoteric” to want to avoid civilian casualties?
“But they do absolutely nothing to protect our combat troops who have to respond in an instant to a life or death situation.”
Here’s a suggestion as to avoiding such a life and death situation, Bring the Troops Home Now!
‘In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than 6 of 10 people back the idea of a non-binding congressional resolution expressing opposition to Bush’s plan to commit an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.’
THS, you ought to perform an exorcism, you’ve got a poltergeist in your comments!
All this time I thought poltergeists were happy, mischievous spirits.
What’s the word for something dead, ignorant and angry?