.....what do you think is right, what do you think is wrong ?

Could you first define battle? What sets it apart from other violent engagements?

I'm talking about war......

Is an insurgency against an official (regardless of its legitimacy) authority and act of war or an act of terrorism? Can only states be at war? What about a civil war where there are a lot of irregulars?

It's easy to play with these concepts to broaden or limit what your rules of engagement are. Anyway, I think the convention of Geneva is what should underlie the specif rules of engagement of any combattant party. Only problem is, this gives no options to a weaker guerilla force to try to confront the stronger force. In these cases, I still think the stronger force should stay within the boundaries of the Geneva convention, even though the opposing party cannot possibly follow these rules.

@ nferyn. Very good statement. But when it's coming to combat, rules of engagement do not exist. Geneva convention ? Most people do not even know what they are about.......

@ nferyn. Have you ever been in the Army ?

Trooper:

@ nferyn. Have you ever been in the Army ?

No, but I had a friend and collegue at my former place of work who was a captain of the Belgian paratroopers. We had lots of long discussions and have learned a lot from what he told me. Especially concerning the reasons why he quit. He was in Bosnia and because of what he'd been through there, he decided to quit rather than to lose his sanity.

And rules of engagement had a lot to do with his decision

@nferyn. Bosnia sounds very very very familiar to me. And believe me, there were no rules of engagement.

@ nferyn. Do you have any idea how it feels to collect the legs of a buddy who stepped on a hidden mine ? To collect the ID tag of a friend who got shoot in the back ? Unfortunately, rules of engagement does not exist anymore.

That's exactly what he was talking about. The region was supposed to be pacified (at least that's what the media was reporting). They were on patrol and all of a sudden they were under fire. One of his buddies got a nasty wound in his belly and his intestines were bulging out. He died in my friend's arms. They were under rules not to return fire under any circumstances. After that happened, they switched off their radio's and went after the people that fired on them.
Apparently, it was a 14 year old boy that shot at their buddy. They took him and he was never seen again. My colleague really didn't want to go into any details of what they did to the boy, only that that incident made him quit.
If he would have stayed, he would never have been able to function anymore in a civilian environment.

He told me of some of his former buddies that became psychotic. There was one incident in which a paratrooper started behaving strangely after a tour and his wife divorced from him. Afterwards he took his children, drugged them and drove his car into a canal where they drowned. That was someone from his platoon.

That friend of his that died in Bosnia was reported to be killed in a training accident. The media reported him as overrun by a Tank, just a cover up.

Let us stand up and salute all the good men who died there !

Agreed, but let's also not forget what war does to people. Their hopes, futures and mental health shattered.

The politicians should not decide so lightly to send men into battle, especially without clear objectives. I wonder what will happen to all these boys returning from Iraq

Half of them will go down and end up in the streets. I was used to live in Long Beach a while ago. One of my neighbors, a young Cambodian/American, went to Iraq for HIS country. He came back 6 months later and had a big BBQ in his garden with his family. When he walked out to catch some beer at the next 7/11 he got shoot in the back by gangsters. What a waste........serving and risking his young life for nothing, just to be killed the next day.....I know this got nothing to do with the topic......

...and he was only 19 years old......

I'm so sorry to hear that

I felt bad too....but I'm living in Los Angeles........shootings happen here every f****** day. Most of them are for nothing.....refuse to give them some change, refuse to buy them alcohol because they are minors.....say something against their colours......reason enough to get killed. And never ever, I mean never answer if a Black or Hispanic guy ask you " Where are you from ?" Just run.....again, this got nothing to do with the topic.

Now, back on topic.
Have I answered you question to your satisfaction?

There's always a difference between should and did. Training will make probably get them closer.

Yes you did, you are alright brother !

If you don't mind me asking, Trooper, do you have a military background ?  And if so, in what capacity did you serve ?  I live in So Cal now and then, so I know to try and stay clear of the South Central/ Crenshaw free fire zone,  especially on a Saturday night when the bloods and crips are out cruising for a rumble.

@ Jakumo. I served a few years in the German Army, Special Forces. And yeah, I was used to go in and out by friends living in Compton, but as a white guy you are not really safe in this neighborhood. Once we were cruising trough South Central on a Sunday morning and my crazy Latino friend opened the window yelling at everybody "white power, white power". He brought us into trouble. We ran into the "Blues" ( Crips ) too but they believed that we are undercover cops. A white guy with a Latino driving with a new car trough this area ? They must be cops....

Where do you live ?

I'm currently in Africa, but graduated from college a few miles east of L.A, and did most of my growing up in the inland valleys of Southern California, where I return as often as I can, generally in the ski season when the San Gabriel mountains are dressed in white.

Veering back to the subject thread, with your special forces background, I must say I'd pity the blood, crip or cholo that that takes an interest in your rules of engagement. Stay Up.

Jakumo, East LA ? I'm pretty sure you have seen a lot of bad things too.........Special Forces or not, we were not so special........just well trained. Take care Man and watch yourself when you are getting back to the 'hood...

In the rules of engagement you have to know your enemy and yourself before you commence for battle.
You have to know your enemy weak points.
Cut supply of food and ammonitions
Send spies to investigate your enemy battles are won on inteligence report.
All warfare is based on deception so decieve the enemy,there when capable of attacking,feign incapacity:when active in moving troops feign inactivity.
Wars are won as a result of good foreknowledge.

Rules? What rules? The only thing that matters is Victory.

Destroy your enemies' capacity to make war. Reach into his homeland and his home, let him know misery. Let him feel hunger. Ensure the common people are behind you. Take your time. Infiltrate his media outlets. Infiltrate his military. Infiltrate his bedroom. Build global coalitions. All this before a shot is fired. Etc, etc, etc.

One shot, 20 WIAs. Overload his medical facilities...

Okay, that's enough.

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are issued to troops deployed on military operations based on the political considerations for the conduct of such operations. The Rules basically seek to escalate the situation, maintain the status quo or de-escalate the situation. Prior to the compilation of ROE, a proper intelligence assessment would have been conducted to ascertain the workability of the ROE in such situation. The Rules include the inherent right of self defence to include the lives of non combatants and protection of mission essential equipment. They are issued to the troops to be deployed during the orders briefing for that exercise.

I try abi!!!

Rules of engagement in International Law hinges on Necessity and Proportionality. Armed forces apply the combat power necessary to ensure victory through appropriate and disciplined use of force. The problem arises when rebel forces, who do not observe International treaties or Customary International Laws are involved.
There are on going debate on the trial of soldiers that violate Laws of War. Whether soldiers can use the defense of superior orders and duress for their actions during combat? This is a difficult issue especially when the soldier is facing threat of death if he doesn't obey an order. The other issue is command responsibility. Should a commander be responsible for all the actions of his troop, regardless of whether he knew or should have known?

The name of the game is Assymetric Warfare

A- S- S- Y- M- E- T- R- I- C W- A- R- F- A- R- E

Better get yo study up. We use to joke plenty in the 101st about how many "rules" would get broken immediately. On contact, because technically, we were in places we were "not suppossed to be".

The use of asymmetric warfare (covert operations) may allow you to engage the enemy in an area with a high risk of civilian casualty. But usually the success of such operations do not translate into substantial gains and the war drags on.

Idekeson:

The use of asymmetric warfare (covert operations) may allow you to engage the enemy in an area with a high risk of civilian casualty. But usually the success of such operations do not translate into substantial gains and the war drags on.

Do you have some operations that you would like tell us about that illustrates your point that "usually the success of such operations [assymetric] do not translate into substantial gains and the war drags on". I am always on the lookout for battlefield, strategy, and policy failures.

War is shit. That's all I have to add to your discussion. War is legalized crime.