Change the RoE

[Barry]

Washington Times
Untie military hands
By James A. Lyons Jr.
January 26, 2007


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.
We do not need to identify the threat as Sunni, Shia, al Qaeda or Mahdi Army. The "who" is immaterial. The danger is not. The threat of imminent attack must be immediately suppressed. And while we must always respect the lives of the innocent, the requirement of minimal or no collateral damage cannot preempt an appropriate response.
The insurgents, be they Sunni or Shia, are well aware of our restrictive ROEs and they use them to their advantage. Indeed, as the thousands of insurgent-inflicted Iraqi civilian deaths illustrate, the death squads, assassination teams and al Qaeda killers in Iraq have no regard for human life. Victims are looked upon as expendable: cannon fodder in order to achieve their objectives. As we saw in Lebanon, Hezbollah held women and children hostage in the same buildings they used to conduct offensive operations. They wanted civilian deaths. This same tactic is being used in Iraq today.
We cannot, therefore, afford to keep our combat troops shackled by a naive, legalistic disadvantage that takes no note of the real world, or the real battlefield. Moreover, our combat forces are currently fighting a two-front war: a literal battlefield in Iraq, and a virtual front in Washington, where politicians snipe at our troops with words, threats of budget cuts, and unrealistic strictures on our warriors' behavior. Both the Iraqi insurgents and the radical Islamist fundamentalists dedicated to the destruction of Western values and democracy understand quite well that today, wars are not only fought on the battlefield but are also won or lost in Washington. They are only too happy to watch as our politicians water down our military goals and objectives in the name of some misbegotten legalistic concept of fair play and gentle warfare.
Our combat forces have never lost an engagement in Iraq. Let's make sure they don't lose the war in Washington. Unshackle the military and let our soldiers and Marines do their job. This will quickly silence the critics, as well as the insurgents and radical Islamist fundamentalists.

James A. Lyons Jr. is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.

[Corlyss_D]

I've argued about this my friend Duane for weeks now. Bush et al. can promise Petreus all they will about allowing the army & marines the freedom to fight like, well, a military instead of the Sisters of Mercy. But in point of fact, the first time Al Jazeera and the Beeb run footage of the squalling widows and dead children, the Iraqis will complain and the administration will cave in. It's as sure as night following day. You have a hint how things will go in the idiotic Iraqi orders to release the Persian generals captured in military operations. We should have rushed them out of the country, denied we had them in the first place, and squeeze 'em till they talked. That would have been smart. I won't believe the RoEs are changed until I see 1) the Al Jazeera and Beeb footage, 2) the administration response of "unfortunate," and 3) all future references to the footage ignored. Then I will be encouraged.

Last year in an interview an marine general lamented that when the administration ordered the marines to take down Falluja, they should have thought about the routine consequences of unleashing a marine division on an essentially defenseless city before the order, not in the middle of the operation when the news footage appalled them. It's the Colin Powell equivocation again: "Looks bad on tv." That's no way to run a war, much less win one. The current RoEs boil down to one sentiment: dead American warriors are preferrable to dead enemy or dead civilians. That's immoral.

[Werner]

Glad you're able to get in a swipe at Colin Powell - the one genuine star of the first Bush cabinet. You remember the Powell doctrine of overwhelming power?

Look what we got for ignoring it!

[BorisG]

Iraq means Vietnam. Don't think twice it's alright.

[RebLem]

Glad you're able to get in a swipe at Colin Powell - the one genuine star of the first Bush cabinet. You remember the Powell doctrine of overwhelming power?

Look what we got for ignoring it!

Powell had to leave because he was the only one who was right. He just didn't fit in, ya know what I mean?

[Brendan]

Quite apart from the kind of overwhelming firepower routinely used against civilians (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... ntPage=all) which causes bloodfeud rather than stability, it shold be noted that the most full-on firefights Western forces have faced have been when one Western force has encountered another unknowingly and gone hell-for-leather. The Brits were more wary of the US forces than anything Saddam had.

The RoE are there for a reason, IMHO. Controlled response under fire is very difficult to train and learn, but can be done more effectively than has been, also IMHO.

[Madame]

Since when do politicians write ROE's? I mean, the ones who also control budgets?

Isn't that a military leadership function?

Someone, educate me.

[Corlyss_D]

Since when do politicians write ROE's? I mean, the ones who also control budgets?

Isn't that a military leadership function?

Someone, educate me.

Since commanders-in-chief don't like to upset the media and the UN and the Europeans. Before 1989, they didn't want to upset the Russians. In a perfect world, every President would be a Lincoln who wanted to win, and he would fire generals who didn't till he got to a Grant who wasn't afraid of killing people, especially the enemy. Alas, the last such President we had was FDR/Truman. Now we have a public that can't tolerate even 1000 dead per annum and 1.5 major parties that only want a big army for show, but not to use.