How did EOF rules help or hurt your unit down range?

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:12:07 -0400

* Remember to vote in the survey here *

Look, I get it – the popular response here is to say that all EOF (Escalation of Force) rules hurt units on the ground, no matter what. Some of us want to say, “Without any EOF rules we would have won both wars so easily!” To me, these comments belong in the same category as when people say, “Just nuke the whole Middle East and things will be perfect.” Neither statement is true at all (perhaps some will debate me on that).

Having said all this, I do acknowledge that there were times when EOF rules – and uncertainty in how to actually manage them as a leader – made it really tough to be effective on the ground in Iraq.

But there were also times when EOF rules HELPED my unit’s effectiveness, such as in dealing with local Iraqis who turned out to be innocent.

//

Question for RP community -- I’d like to hear from RP members about times when EOF rules actually helped their unit. Or, if you choose, you can also reflect on times when EOF rules made things harder.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 5 at 2015 10:18 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:18:22 -0400

It helped as far as legitimacy is concerned however, it did allow us to make sure of some non-lethal tactics such as the green laser dazzler and etc....

I am still bitter about embedded media, I believe it often served as a negative catalyst much more than a positive during most of my time being deployed....bad news sells, right?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2015 10:26 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:26:26 -0400

More often than not I felt it hurt my unit in OEF. Having been there recently 13-14. I understand the need for EOF but felt it was mostly dictated by those far above the everyday ground. Being told our convoys can't inturrupt the flow of traffic or not allowing any stand off from local nationalvehicles and the convoy.. Certain led to some more concerning times..

That said I also had incidents where cycling a EOF assisted in de escalation of a situations that could have ended a lot worse. Of course those times were more often than not involving ANA or ANP rather than the enemy.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 5 at 2015 10:29 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:29:31 -0400

Won't vote as it does not apply in my case.
However .. if you are going to make war, make war .. unrelenting, unmitigated war.
You are not going to "win wars easily", but you will win the war and not spend decades grinding against a wall and fighting the same battle over and over.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Apr 5 at 2015 11:07 AM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 11:07:22 -0400

EOF helped more than it hurt, these rules are all about preventing an escalation of violence. I like the logical structure and forced process, but I am that type of thinker.

Most of the situations we dealt with were problems with culture and communication. The times when it hurt are when we are in a straight up VBIED or ground assault and you react more slowly because you are trying to figure it out.

The most frustrating part is the constant hindsight review and then Monday morning quarterbacking. While we want to learn from our experiences, we must give the widest latitude to soldiers.

EOF rules means as a leader or a soldier you have difficult choices and these decisions have consequences. I can only reflect back and have confidence I did right as best I knew how.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 5 at 2015 11:08 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 11:08:40 -0400

Some things are just better left to demonstrating effectiveness by describing firs hand recount of events, I will share one of the toughest challenges I faced as a 1SG in Iraq during the surge.

I thought about this since answering it, and the answer really depends on the period covered, the EOF & ROE was somewhat of a fluid situation. While some things always remained constant (you ALWAYS have the right of self defense), some deviations occurred during the deployments which led to confusion and at one point led to some being a little trigger shy when faced with a legitimate target.

We were aligned in Company Task Force Configuration, so we had a tank platoon with us from our brothers in 1-37 Armor, 1st Platoon (callsign "Shady") was with us, they demonstrated their combat resilience & resolve by being able to operate with their Abrams as well as in up-armor HMMWV's, sometimes switching vehicle platforms throughout the day based on mission location and destruction requirements requested.

SPC (P) Daul was the platoon top gun, a gym rat, clever, and at times could be a smart ass, but always really into the mission was killed when hit by an EFP - it was a challenge to keep this platoon together and to keep them from unleashing hell. The platoon had recently lost their medic (SGT Almazon) killed 27 August 2006 when the HMMWV hit an IED and completely destroyed the vehicle. SGT Almazan was a very eager medic and was a true professional, the challenge to keep the platoon grounded in the escalation of force measures was a tremendous challenge. Some will say that we are professionals and we execute our missions as professionals, but until you fight together and lose 10 of your own brothers in arms, that you see everyday, that you see at their best and at their worst, you can cast your stone of contempt but the challenge is hell to try to keep these Soldiers to remain on course, to continue to use these Escalation of Force Measures and these Rules of Engagement.

I am not interested in hearing your thoughts of how disciplined your unit was and how much better they may have handled it, all experiences are different, and the challenges for this platoon was tremendous, and quite frankly numbing!

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/apdaul.htm

Andrew Patrick Daul, Sergeant, United States Army

Biography of Andrew Patrick Daul, Sergeant, United States Army

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 5 at 2015 12:36 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 12:36:58 -0400

Proper EOF kept me from shooting an afghan army pickup driver with a lead foot. I might have won a hypothetical fight but our lives would have changed substantially. Probably for the worse.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Apr 5 at 2015 12:38 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 12:38:41 -0400

I think EOF rules are important, I think it separates us from the rest of the world. We have all lost brothers and sisters "downrange". We all remember the feeling inside that made us want to "kill all of them". Without EOF, that next patrol could turn bad really quick. It forces us to react to situations based on what is happening now.

I hate that the "Big Army" spends so much time punishing SM's for making a decision using EOF. It is hard to second guess a leaders reaction to there assessment of the situation at that moment, months later by individuals who were not there. It causes leaders to second guess things and SM's could get injured or killed because of it.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 5 at 2015 2:05 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 14:05:39 -0400

CPT Aaron Kletzing The options you provided don't really work for me and my experiences. I, honestly, have never really paid much attention to the ROE for two reasons.

- First, as an MP, MPs are trained from birth in the use of force, and carrying loaded weapons, They generally (with rare exceptions) well understand the use of force, escalation of force, and when deadly force is and is not authorized. We certainly brief and enforce the ROE, but I also believe the transition from Garrison to combat is smoother for most MP Soldiers.

- Second, regardless of the ROE, the ROE never prevents the use of force for self defense, self protection (and the protection of others), and it never means (at least in my units and deployments) you can't use deadly force when you believe you or your unit is in imminent danger. Ultimately the shooter has to be able to explain their actions.

I have heard many accounts of this being an issue, in many conflicts, and I understand that. But, I have not seen this personally in my small corner of the Army.

Much of this depends on what phase of conflict you are in. Phase IV operations are much different that Phase III initially entry operations, especially opposed/contested entries. ROE changes depending on what the threat environment, and I believe politics also plays a role.

Last, I believe that our values and morals can put US Soldiers (service members) in danger, regardless of the ROE, as our values and value of human life is not the same as an many of our adversaries. Our values, make shooting at civilians, women, children, etc. not compute. That causes us to hesitate even when someone who should not be the enemy could be the most dangerous threat; hesitation can be deadly in a gun fight.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 5 at 2015 3:37 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 15:37:41 -0400

I'm actually more 50/50. It helped, insofar as it provided some guidance for the guys on the ground. It helped, in that it helped reign in needless times when people could have been engaged for no reason. But, the EOF was kind of vague in other areas, and honestly like I've heard some people say on rallypoint (this was my experience too), people became more afraid of going to jail at times. Nothing's perfect, at least the EOF was there, but I would have liked far more training on this subject before I had deployed, honestly. And to be honest, I believe anyone that deploys, even the fobbits, should be as trained up and as knowledgeable about the EOF as any other unit that deploys.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2015 6:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:10:58 -0400

How did it hurt? There way too many complicated ROE rules. All they had state is "IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE IN DANGER. EMPTY YOUR MAGAZINE". It is broad and a bit vague, but most of combat units in line of being shot (I m sorry if it sounds bad) made their own rules. There is just no way about it, you can't bring politics when someone is trying to gap your arse. You are just trying to kill that mofker before he kills you.

Response by MSG Jeff Haskell made Apr 5 at 2015 7:44 PM

MSG Jeff Haskell — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 19:44:21 -0400

The "Escaltation of Force" really didn't apply to my unit because of our mission set. But, we were always scrutinized on every mission thru other means. Because of our training we maintained a discipline that SA was paramount and respect was always given until proven otherwise.
Now... Saying that, the other elements I my unit, they experienced EOF later on in conflict. I was informed that it became a detriment at times but it made more level heads prevail. I hope this answers your question without getting too specific.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2015 11:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:30:18 -0400

Not a fair question as I deployed with Special Forces. They were under a totally different set of rules.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 9:59 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 09:59:16 -0400

I don't even know where to start. EOF, ROE, PID, LIT, Hostile Act, Hostile Intent............now figure out which one applies, while one of your people is screaming because his legs just got blown off, you're being engaged from 3 directions, you can't give a description of who is shooting at you because they're firing from cover and 300m away, there's spotters in between firing positions and you can't get any supporting arms because there's an abandoned mud hut within 1km. ROE's and EOF are only good for public/media relations not for the man who has to close that last 100 yds.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 6 at 2015 10:05 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:05:57 -0400

I don't see where either of these fit. I found that EOF just kept someone from opening up on a crowd. 75 to 85 percent of the things that happen where not a reason to fire on someone. I found that once you got out and talked to the people it was attainable to fix the situation. But there are the 15 to 25 percent of the time where you knew they where bad, and you knew the situation was going to go south really fast. And it did. When you see persons running for cover carrying weapons it usually ends up in a fire fight. When it was if they where wearing black shoot, carrying a RPG shoot, it was easy. But then they change their TTP and they where hard to distinguish until fired upon.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made Apr 6 at 2015 10:59 AM

SPC Daniel Bowen — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:59:47 -0400

I do agree with what you said CPT Kletzing, but its also unfortunate that its all circumstantial. Some areas and EOFs hurt units more than helped. Waiting 20-30 minutes to have your arty approved to fire because it now has to go through battalion rather than the CO causes more damage and more casualties. Grunts and officers on the ground are trained to do that, so why be babysat by a command? Mind you that's a command that approved your training for that as well.
There are many rules put in place for damn good reason and I support them, but there are some so ridiculous that they cause a hindrance on the effectiveness in combat. Do we want to win the hearts in minds? Yes of course. But don't do it by being 'sooo careful with who can do what' in combat that in turn you cannot even engage the enemy in time. Keeping moral and ethical values in an army is great in the moment, but it can unnecessarily kill an army the same way and defeat their purpose at that time.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 11:57 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:57:50 -0400

I take a hard stance on this as COIN operations put those of us on the ground in rather unpredictable situations that were already difficult enough. We ran PSD missions while in country, a total of 70, each had it's own concerns.

I find that many of the officers and intelligence assets with us during this time believed coin to be a good thing. I, on the other hand, feel that it firmly put us at a disadvantage to the indigenous population of our sector. Our security measures were more relaxed due to the need for intelligence gathering operations. This in time led to our sister platoon becoming the target of a suicide bomber, killing three soldiers in the inner circle of the PSD unit. Had proper protocol been taken and soldiers been allowed to properly do what they had been taught, this attack may have been averted. I feel that this compromised our ROE's and made for a disastrous outcome during a mission that should have been routine where operational security and safety is concerned.

Granted, I am aware that "war is war," but intelligence trumps this ideology. Intelligence allows us to be smarter so that these wars follow a greater line and not that of the wars of attrition this one has followed.

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 6 at 2015 1:25 PM

SSG John Erny — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 13:25:07 -0400

We have to have rules of engagement. When some one messes up and breaks the rules the press is all over it like white on rice. During WWII it was common place for enemy snipers to end up dead even if they surrendered. Try that today and you will end up behinds bars

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Apr 6 at 2015 3:32 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:32:17 -0400

EOF ruled helped those of my MOS, we were required to take educated chances in order to meet locals, both in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. All my deployments where in Afghanistan while my unit deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq. We lost team members in both countries to suicide bombers; EOF made no difference. I learned my craft of taking educated chances in 1985, when the rules of engagement for Latin America as set by the President were you are better of dead then to cause another international incident. So for me and those from Civil Affairs it is not about how many you killed but rather about not getting killed as you meet locals, because en route to a village or place the enemy always engaged first with every thing they had. In two occasions they just rocketed our PRT/fire base.

Response by SPC Steven Nihipali made Apr 6 at 2015 11:49 PM

SPC Steven Nihipali — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 23:49:40 -0400

I believe that's where ptsd comes from... bring hyper vigilant 24/7 instead of an all out squad or team based decision. Too many times we were hit with IED's because of some officer who never left the wire was making decisions for EOD/RC.

Saving Iraqi lives is the last thing a soldier is thinning about when bullets are flying over head. PID couldn't be muzzle flash? Are you fucking kidding? "It could've been a mirror" is what battalion claimed... RPG shot at my truck, we couldn't shoot back because the guy shot and dropped. Kinda bullshit is that

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2015 12:55 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:55:58 -0400

There are pros and cons to EOF. I saw first had when it has saved us from getting involved in a bad situation. Sometimes there is not that seasoned Vet on the gun. Sometimes it is that wet behind the ears kid who just graduated high school a few months ago that without the guideline would be lighting everything up that moved. Other times I was afraid that the gunners fear of persecution would allow that car to get too close before it blew up. Seeing it's good and bad side, I can decide if hurt more or helped more.

Response by SPC(P) Nathan Stewart made Apr 7 at 2015 6:07 PM

SPC(P) Nathan Stewart — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:07:31 -0400

I was a British Army Combat Infantryman in 2003. The ROE were constantly changing depending on the mission we were engaging in. The ROE ended up hurting my unit because it went from engage everyone that was a threat, to identify the specific threat. I lost 3 RMP's in my AO and we lost a senior CPT from my unit to an IED in another companies AO. The current operation in Iraq needs to have ROE that will keep the troops safe and not keep the population happy.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Apr 8 at 2015 2:03 PM

SSG Richard Reilly — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:03:09 -0400

I read several post before I made my decision on what to post. Here is my post.

EOF is escalation of force. It is the minimum force necessary to stop a hostile act or threat or even a perceived hostile at or threat. It ranges from shouting at them to shooting at them. But it gives you the tools to make a decision on what should the force be to stop this threat.

Ex. Was on a convoy that a vehicle broke down. We got out to pull security. I was at an intersection when a car was speeding toward me. First reaction was oh s**t shoot this *cussword*. But then I raised my weapon and watched him slam on the breaks throw it in reverse and speed away. My first reaction was to protect everyone behind me but my training ended it without a loss of life.

PID is Positive Identification. Why would you not want to positively identify the hostile act or threat? That is just shooting blindly at something you think might be bad.

We are not a country that empowers service members to act like barbarians. We have rules that make us professional Soldiers. You can be grunt, POG bias as you want. But what separates professional Soldier from terrorist is that we follow rules. You may get angry and emotional and want to destroy the world but in the end what separates you from them is you don't. You destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat and you do with in a manner that is just and right.

The people that hate the ROE, EOF, PID, etc.., are ones that either don't understand it, or ones who's command was so busy trying to save face made bad decisions and hid behind the ROE. ROE has never limited your right to self-defense. And the US definition of self-defense is very lax compared to other countries.

Did the EOF help, yes if it was used correctly, same way a M4 or Leatherman would if used correctly.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Apr 8 at 2015 3:07 PM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:07:31 -0400

SEE ABOVE

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Apr 8 at 2015 3:09 PM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:09:17 -0400

I can't vote. The point is moot. The question is are we ever going to pretend to win the war with peace again? Unless the political and military objectives and goals are the same victory cannot be won. Sherman's "total war" concept shortened and then won the Civil War for the Union, but at what cost? What cost a marginal victory or defeat? In WWII we demanded unconditional surrender, but then followed with the Marshall Plan. Win the war and then you win the peace. You can't mix the two. You can't do the peace first and then expect to win the war. War must come first and swiftly and decisively, with violence and tenacity. We have military in over 150 countries world wide, and still in Germany, Japan and Italy over 70 years after defeating them, and not as conquerors or occupiers, but as friends and allies. We should have done the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, the high ground in the Global War on Terror. We needed to maintain the security and then implement a Middle East Marshall Plan, with regional neighbors participating in the INVESTMENT of peace through strength. We needed to maintain power projection platforms in Iraq and Afghanistan. We needed to own the region militarily. Now what?

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Apr 8 at 2015 3:22 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:22:54 -0400

In our DetOps mission, we had everything from verbal correction to loss of privileges to tasers to LTL munitions, to lethal munitions.

A clear understanding of EOF was critical, and it it helped ensure that we were able to FULLY justify any actions necessary involved in maintaining order in the TIF.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 5:04 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 17:04:25 -0400

There definitely needs to be EOF rules in place. Without them too many innocent civilians would be wounded or killed. I believe a lot of Soldiers get confused when talking about EOF and ROE (Rules of Engagement). EOF saved the life of a young kid. I almost shot this kid because I thought he was throwing a geenade but it was really a rock. My 1SG saw this and stopped me. The ROE needs to be revaluation because I do believe when they are too strict, Soldiers die. I was engaged by a sniper and could not return fire because I did not have positive identification of my target. I knew where he was but couldn't see him. Had I fired and hit a civilian then I could have been charged. Luckily I was a moving target, but the next Soldier may not have been so lucky. Five shots went by my head close enough to feel the heat off the rounds. ROE is important but there needs to be some room for judgment calls. The humanitarian side of the mission can interfere with the ultimate goal of winning the war.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 9:25 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:25:26 -0400

I'll be up front and state that we did not see a lot of enemy contact when I deployed. The war was pretty much over in Iraq by 2011. I did, however, have a number of frustrations with our ROE. It was strict to the point of creating hesitation within our Soldiers. Instead of reacting, our Soldiers had to sit and wonder if they're going to jail for what they're about to do. Armchair quarterbacking ran rampant. We were required to use a T&E on our M2 .50 cals on our vehicles, which is beyond ridiculous. Our MK19s weren't allowed out of the arms room. Firing so much as a pen flare resulted in a 15-6 investigation, as did losing a single round of 5.56. When we asked for non-lethal rounds to defend our vehicles from thieves we were quickly shot down. We were apparently expected to allow the Iraqis to steal equipment instead. All of this made our Soldiers so unsure of themselves that nobody wanted to make a decision.

The damage was evident in a training rotation we did in Kuwait after the missions in Iraq were over. We did a rotation at the Udairi range complex, complete with OPFOR, COBs, etc. When one of the other Platoons received indirect fire from a visually identifiable mortar tube they just buttoned up and drove away. My own gunner was hesitant to engage in an urban environment, even when he had an identifiable OPFOR member shooting at him. While I think restraint certainly has a place in a COIN environment, we took it way too far in my opinion.

Response by SGT Shayne Merritt made Apr 8 at 2015 11:58 PM

SGT Shayne Merritt — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:58:24 -0400

EOF is important... I will not say that it is not a necessity, I will however say that it hinders and puts lives at risk and in real danger when combined with the ever evolving ROE's... For example "Do not fire unless directly fired upon"; that statement right there takes the 5 "S's" of EOF and pretty much turns it into us yelling at the insurgency and they know it, they know we can't do shit unless they pull the trigger... They can point their weapons, scout the shit out of our squad movement, move from fire point to fire point without consequence... It ties our hands and kills our Soldiers... I'm tracking that there are those that abuse EOF/ROE... And they can be prosecuted just as easily as they are now... So why make it so GD hard for us to do our job?

Response by SGT John Morris made Apr 9 at 2015 11:35 AM

SGT John Morris — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:35:50 -0400

Very fine line in my case, but I was part of OIF 1 & 2, before things really unraveled. That being said however, our ROE was so ridiculous (enemy must have round in chamber and be shooting at us to engage, etc) that despite perseverance of our unit integrity and the professionalism exuded by my fellow Falcons, there were moments of hesitation where minus arbitrary ROE details would likely have not existed.
It seemed to most if not all of us that somewhere looming over us was a O-4/5/6 who was more concerned with their career than the lives of us grunts and the POG's supporting us, when all of us in uniform should have been far away from the politics behind everything and concentrating on our military mission.

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Apr 9 at 2015 1:11 PM

CPL Brian Clouser — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:11:35 -0400

EOF are for police officers not for soldiers. As soldiers are job is to make the enemy to surrender by any means possible. If you don't believe that, take a look at WW2 if EOF was in effect then we wouldn't have drop the atomic bomb and the war lasted years longer

Response by MSG David Johnson made Apr 9 at 2015 2:00 PM

MSG David Johnson — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:00:04 -0400

When you're in a route clearance unit and you have to warn the idiots in the middle of the night that you have seen them digging in the road with a large package beside him, and can't do a damn thing about it unless he's stupid enough to shoot at you.

That's why ROE/EOF got to be really stupid.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 4:39 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:39:35 -0400

Escalation of force hurt too many units, because in a moment when you have to resort to deadly force, leaders misinterpret the EOF, and, run the whole process, getting soldiers confused, and killed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 5:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:40:31 -0400

I never had any issues with the EOF rules themselves, the way they were managed on the other hand.......

For example, while the EOF allowed for such non-lethal methods of getting another vehicles attention on a convoy, a pen-flare for example, a policy requiring an AR 15-6 investigation any time an EOF event occurred, including non-lethal occurrences, put lives and/or Soldier's integrity at risk. Soldiers and leaders either chose not to report the incident in order to save the hassle of the investigation or chose not to utilize EOF allowing enemy fighters to harass them more easily. Either way the Army, the Soldier and the country lose.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Apr 10 at 2015 8:29 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:29:10 -0400

I felt like there was this little dude standing next to me with a clipboard checking whether I went through all the steps before I fired my weapon. I finally disposed of that guy and used an easier standard "If you don't want it seen on CNN...don't do it"

Response by CPT Arch Nissel made Apr 14 at 2015 4:25 PM

CPT Arch Nissel — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:25:53 -0400

The politicians should have no say in the "RULES". When they declare war than it is war against the enemy. To risk our troops to make them feel good is to waste human life in the most disrespectful thing a politician could do.

Response by LCpl Brian Keim made Apr 16 at 2015 3:42 PM

LCpl Brian Keim — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:42:15 -0400

My squad spent lots of time outside the wire. There were many times the ROE's prevented us from engaging enemy forces while we were under direct fire and caught in the open with nowhere to go. Having solid ground rules that are common sense will always be beneficial, but the ROE's pushed out by the current administration endangered more of our guys than anything else. Anybody who's been in their fair share of gunfights will tell you the same. Everybody else that says differently is an idiot

Response by SP5 Brian Kent made Apr 16 at 2015 7:36 PM

SP5 Brian Kent — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:36:34 -0400

Did not have this when I was in

Response by LCpl Walter Levels made Apr 16 at 2015 9:44 PM

LCpl Walter Levels — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:44:00 -0400

I didn't deploy as I was disabled stateside.

Response by CPL Sean Farrell made Apr 17 at 2015 4:26 PM

CPL Sean Farrell — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:26:03 -0400

In 2007 I was in Al-Rashid, Baghdad EOF, ROE, and PID was easy it mitigated a lot of innocent people getting hurt. A short time later we went to the Diyala province (which was like a jungle placed into Iraq) EOF, PID was pretty much a hindrance to us.

Response by SGT Frederick Emerson made Apr 18 at 2015 2:39 AM

SGT Frederick Emerson — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 02:39:48 -0400

Never heard of EOF, sounds like political BS. How about politicians get out of war fighting and we'll stay outa politics. You point out the enemy. and we'll kill them.

Response by PO3 James Conner made Apr 18 at 2015 1:13 PM

PO3 James Conner — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:13:51 -0400

I was in a fire fight about once a week with my marines, EoF never seemed like a problem for us.

Response by SGT Scott Ferguson made Apr 18 at 2015 2:34 PM

SGT Scott Ferguson — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:34:04 -0400

We were not allowed any magazines unless on convoy and then limited access to rounds, complete bullshit. We hauled munitions all over and were not allowed sidearms, etc...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 3:35 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:35:56 -0400

Nukes argument is suicidal because the people who propose that, do not consider escalation or even the fall-out, plus Russia is waiting.

Response by PO1 David Wire made Apr 19 at 2015 12:11 AM

PO1 David Wire — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:11:37 -0400

While I never served in a forward unit, I did serve on a nuclear missile quick reaction base during the cold war in Germany in the Army. And my opinion is as follows: If we were to put the old adage to work, "All's fair in love and war." And not demonstrate a pacifist attitude. If we were to line up about 100 ISIS members dress right dress, blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs. Then film them as we hack their heads off, then leave their bodies laying in a clump somewhere in some camel dung laden sand pile. Then post this on Youtube for the entire world to gawk at. Proudly proclaim that we are responsible for the act. And then give every member that lopped someone's dome off, a freaking medal for participating. Well then, I believe that they would take us a lot more seriously and they might put a damper on their terrorists acts... They know we are pacifists and they know our only retaliation might be some indirect airstrike that "might" knock out only a handful of them at a time. Or we may even put more of our troops in harms way. Which I would hate to see. Another thought might be arming the rest of the Muslim world to the teeth and then ask them if just maybe they might be tired of this handful of individuals giving their supposed "peaceful" religion a black eye? If they are then maybe they might eliminate our problem for us....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 1:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:03:02 -0400

There should be a third option. As I have been in both situations. When I was an 11B ( I re-classed), the EOF rules definitely hurt our capabilities. As warriors (and no, just because you wear the uniform doesn't make you a warrior, a debated for another time) it is our job to fight and kill the enemy. When I re-classed and got sent to a POG unit, the EOF rules helped, as most of the Soldiers I was with had no actual combat experience. So I guess all I am saying is it really depends on your situation.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 7:07 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 07:07:44 -0400

Overall they helped, but Id have to say that its only about 51/49 tip over for EOF being a good thing. I do agree that it separates us from the Terrorists, yet the cost of it, i.e. "you can only fire if you're being fired upon", is a high one. I've...we've all lost too many Brothers in Arms to others who shot first. Everything has its own negatives, and the side effects of a one-sided ethics is overwhelming, this is war we're talking about.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 7:55 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 07:55:16 -0400

EOF have a place but we're way to ridged for both Iraq and Afghanistan!

Response by SGT Kenneth Goode made Apr 19 at 2015 12:43 PM

SGT Kenneth Goode — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:43:09 -0400

Me personally, I go with the Nuke the Middle East option. BUT that would bring too much heat on us. Then maybe a policy of keeping out of the Middle East seeing its a no win situation.

As far as EOF, yes we need them. Not to win the heart and minds of Muslims, who I really couldn't care less. But as a honorable military worthy of the American public.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 2:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:26:09 -0400

We were 100% reactive and ) % proactive.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 3:39 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:39:41 -0400

Though I didn't agree with EOF in the field, I understand the reasoning behind it. It's one thing to plow through and win a fight, it's another to try and develop diplomatic relations after the dust settles. Though EOF was viewed as a waste of time sometimes, it does have a place in the "Winning the hearts and minds" effort.

Now, ROE, that's a different story!

Response by SGT Chris McDaniel made Apr 19 at 2015 7:25 PM

SGT Chris McDaniel — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:25:57 -0400

I think that EOF policies are a necessary thing. Especially in the modern wars we fight where the enemy is not easily identified. Every time we killed the wrong person overseas it was used to recruit more terrorists. I thought the OP was absolutely correct to say comments like "kill them all" or "nuke the Mideast" are oversimplifications.

Ultimately we'd do better to choose our fights better and avoid messy wars that have no clear goals or endpoint in sight.

Response by SFC Roger Ramsey made Apr 19 at 2015 7:53 PM

SFC Roger Ramsey — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:53:08 -0400

EOF ROE or Amy other acronyms that mean the same or similar to things are important with that being said the soldier on the ground has to use their best judgment. The ROE should be set by someone who has been in combat and understand what happens and why. I always told my soldiers it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six and you do not have to die to be a hero.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 8:57 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:57:08 -0400

I believe Robert Heinlein said it best with this quote.

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control ...If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Response by SPC Christopher Friel made Apr 20 at 2015 1:20 AM

SPC Christopher Friel — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 01:20:52 -0400

Understand that rules are in place to protect US soldiers from themselves and enemy combatants, but it always seems that US soldiers are the only ones held to a moral code of conduct especially with social media today where the slightest incident can go viral. It is like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Response by SPC Ernest Smith made Apr 20 at 2015 8:00 AM

SPC Ernest Smith — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:00:40 -0400

I have no opinion either way. We as a country help everyone and always do the right thing. But sometimes we have to act a certain way to perform our duties to complete the mission.

Response by SFC Justin Patterson made Apr 20 at 2015 9:15 PM

SFC Justin Patterson — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:15:49 -0400

I have a left ear that buzzes all the time, a memory I can't shake and the knowledge that I could have made a difference.

Response by SPC Kristopher Davanzo made Apr 20 at 2015 9:55 PM

SPC Kristopher Davanzo — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:55:46 -0400

Id like to throw this out there...

I didn't join the military to be world police! I joined to be a fighting force for freedom and the american way of life. Truthfully, at least in my opinion, EOF means its not a war, its a conflict.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 10:11 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:11:36 -0400

Our unit managed to create real bonds with the local community IED's were at an all time low for the province along with mortar and rocket attacks. Because of the policies the units that replaced us put in place all of these things increased and led to them losing soldiers.

Response by SPC Ryan Miller made Apr 21 at 2015 11:31 AM

SPC Ryan Miller — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:31:29 -0400

By CPL Ryan Miller less than a minute ago:Fuck the police duty shit the military is not a day care War is War people die that's the way it is...

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2015 4:42 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:42:08 -0400

Multiple scenarios where we had kids literally climbing our walls into our FOB (Jackson-Sangin 2013) and would steal things. We are only lucky that they did not plant IED's or bring a pistol/grenade and kill someone inside the FOB. ROE's are a completely different animal as well, but that will be for another article.

Response by PO1 Kattle Sheets made Apr 21 at 2015 7:32 PM

PO1 Kattle Sheets — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:32:16 -0400

EOF is a politicians way of saying "oh, wait, don't kill em, just yet, like that, until we say so."

Once you sic a dog on someone you damn well expect that animal to come back with a smiling mouth full of some one else's ass. PERIOD.

When politicians fail, Admirals and General RULE!

Response by SGT Steven Tackett made Apr 21 at 2015 7:47 PM

SGT Steven Tackett — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:47:53 -0400

The ROE was to restrictive.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 2:47 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:47:27 -0400

I was on a CET team my first and second tour, because I was the radio guy. On my first tour I manned the M2 50 cal quite a bit. I always felt that the EOF and ROE were on point. We used pin flares quite a bit. Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot is what we went by. If they didn't respond to us or pointed any kind of weapon we could engage without question.

My second tour was a different story. We pretty much couldn't fire on anything until fired at. We had to count each and every round after missions, I hated it. Cars would just hop into the middle of convoy and ride along. Luckily we never got hit by a VBIED, but I'm sure if we would have that the EOF/ROE/TTP would have been to blame.

I certainly didn't want to hurt an innocent person or worse create 5 more terrorists from one dead good guy.

Josh

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 11:34 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:34:28 -0400

Either send us to war to destroy our enemy or keep our asses home! Im so sick and tired of this namby pamby pc BS! I'm not saying its ok to slaughter civilians but its war and soldiers shouldnt have to second guess every action they take!!!

Response by SPC Joseph Jones made Apr 22 at 2015 12:05 PM

SPC Joseph Jones — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:05:57 -0400

Excessive EOF and ROE , in peace time and war is bad. Keep it simple tell the Joe's to use common sense and if the fucker poses a threat eliminate it. Train what is a threat and there will be less issues.

Response by LCpl George Colbert made Apr 22 at 2015 4:33 PM

LCpl George Colbert — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:33:35 -0400

You can not win a war if you are the only side with rules .

Response by SPC David S. made Apr 22 at 2015 4:56 PM

SPC David S. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:56:46 -0400

I look at the case of 1LT Clint Lorance who got 20 years in the killings of two possible Afghan scouts. 1LT Lorance worked in the TOC before taking lead of the platoon. You would think he would know what the ROE's were and how to explain and account for his actions.

The kicker in the case is that the gunner that did the actually killing was not charged with following an unlawful order nor was the LT in giving an unlawful order as least for what I can find on the case.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/08/clint_lorance_north_texas_sold.php

Clint Lorance, a North Texas Soldier, Will Spend 20 Years in Prison for Killing Afghan Civilians

U.S. Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance had been in charge of his platoon for five days when, on July 2, 2012, he accompanied them on a routine, Afghan-led patrol in Kandahar Province. Not long after they left the base, the soldiers were approached by three men on motorcycles. Lorance ordered his...

Response by SSgt Rob Sanders made Apr 22 at 2015 5:57 PM

SSgt Rob Sanders — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:57:30 -0400

I think EOF helped. I never liked them, but they helped. What I thought was much worse were the Staff Pogues second guessing everything and trying to over ride the people on the spot.

Response by SGT Jacob Gerwig made Apr 23 at 2015 6:44 AM

SGT Jacob Gerwig — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:44:37 -0400

I'll say this simply I was in OIF during the bloodiest time of the war for 18 months 06-07 and the EOF or ROE Damn near got us all killed if you go to war go to war not tie everyone's hands behind their back then let the enemy shoot at us and tell us not to engage but if you can runaway

Response by SGT Paul Starr made Apr 23 at 2015 9:43 AM

SGT Paul Starr — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:43:02 -0400

It caused soldiers to hesitate and that means casualties. The enemy learns from our SOPs and then he counters with his new found knowledge. It's hard to be combat effective when you have one hand tied behind your back before you leave the wire, while the enemy breaks every rule and when the enemy is within.

Response by CPL Adam Firebaugh made Apr 23 at 2015 4:13 PM

CPL Adam Firebaugh — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:13:05 -0400

EOF is crap you sent us to war not to be police

Response by SPC Matthew Hillyer made Apr 23 at 2015 9:13 PM

SPC Matthew Hillyer — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:13:38 -0400

I don't believe there should be limits as to when a soldier returns fire. If the platoon leader feels a threat, he or she should be empowered to make a judgment call as to how to respond to said threat. Not politicians or public opinion. War is evil and not for the squimish.

Response by Cpl John Edwards made Apr 24 at 2015 3:48 AM

Cpl John Edwards — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:48:53 -0400

I am a firm believer that during war, any military aged males become fair game based upon good judgement from the guys on the ground. We have no room for politics when patroling in a hostile area.

Response by SPC Robert Hubbard made Apr 24 at 2015 9:38 PM

SPC Robert Hubbard — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:38:38 -0400

I believe it can go either way ours changed so much no one knew what was going on!!! But the fact that you have to wait for the enemy to shoot is bs. They can point their weapons and get a fix on you all they wanted but that one shot is all it takes for us to lose another brother or sister! I also understand some react to quickly or prematurely before they know really what's happening but, its you or them, your life your call.

Response by SGT Devon County made Apr 25 at 2015 12:51 AM

SGT Devon County — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:51:47 -0400

As far EOF I go to the extreme of the spectrum. We put boots on the ground and use any means of force to quell the insurgency. It is war and in war you play to win not to make people like you. If you do your job right after the opposition is destroyed in theatre then the people will support the cause. Just my humble opinion

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2015 3:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:14:54 -0400

On our second deployment our SQD CDR informed us that every time we pulled the trigger a 15-6 would be initiated. Not what you want running through your Soldiers minds when a vehicle is barreling down on them.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 8:45 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:45:22 -0400

ROE got the Vic behind me blown up and got our gunner (LCpl Erickson) killed by a SVBIED. We weren't supposed to interfere with their everyday living and that let vehicles pass by us at will...I think it hurt more than helped. I understand why they are there, just don't agree with most of them.

Response by CPL Robert Joseph made Apr 26 at 2015 8:33 PM

CPL Robert Joseph — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:33:01 -0400

indiscriminate killing is the business of the people we were fighting. It, at times, might have been hard to hold ourselves to a higher standard but we were all trained to do hard things. So in summation, shit sucked but I guess shit sucked for good reasons?

WTF do I know though, just a dumb scout

Response by SGT Shawn Bauer made Apr 27 at 2015 2:15 AM

SGT Shawn Bauer — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:15:16 -0400

More time spent in training on realistic ROE (Rules of Engagement) would have paid huge dividends in both Afghanistan as a Combat Engineer and in Iraq in Civil Affairs controlled by Bragg. At that point the highest levels of command would not have had to put forward unrealistic expectations as to how EOF would be implemented in a real world scenario. They refused to believe, seemingly, that some of us outside the wire accomplishing missions could possibly understand the intricacies of Counter-insurgent Operations and the effects upon Insurgent requirement of collateral damage.

Response by SGT Thomas Cole made Apr 27 at 2015 11:39 AM

SGT Thomas Cole — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:39:54 -0400

You have to fight the enemy in the same mode or fashion that they fight you. if you do not, you have no hope of winning.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made May 15 at 2015 4:14 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Fri, 15 May 2015 16:14:23 -0400

What is EOF? Really though.. My first tour there was a significant amount of mutual trust between the NCOs and Officers. We knew our leaders were going to have our backs and honestly that makes shoot/no-shoot SIGNIFICANTLY less stressful! We had very minimal issues injuring civilians.

Bottom Line: When you don't have to worry about being thrown under the bus for the shot, you can evaluate the situation with a far clearer mind. This, IMO, equals less shots taken over all and of those shots, they will more often than not be prudent decisions easy to defend if necessary.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:42 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:42:12 -0400

EOF was less of an issue for us than was Karzai's ever changing RoE.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 6 at 2015 3:42 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:42:37 -0400

In my humble opinion CPL Brian Clouser and SPC Jan Allbright said it best.

"EOF and ROE are appropriate for Police, not war"... and "if you're going to make war, then make war... Unrelenting, unmitigated war"

You can't give a 19 year old a few months of training, drop him in a combat zone and expect him to have the ability to act like a Police officer, it's beyond his capabilities, but you CAN drop him in a combat zone and tell him to "tear the ass out of everything that moves" and expect great success.

We have the technology to pinpoint where shots and triggers come from down to the foot, we also have the ability to drop 500lbs of HE in that same foot. Collateral damage is a part of the cost of waging war, let the United Nations play "Police force" and "carrot" for developing nations... we're much better at in the role of "the stick".

Response by SPC Randall Eichelberger made Jan 6 at 2016 4:11 PM

SPC Randall Eichelberger — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:11:12 -0500

Honestly anyone thinking that EOF hurts your unit doesn't understand the bigger picture. For every innocent we kill we turn 2-5 people into enemies. No longer is war about destruction. War has evolved and with that the warfighter must evolve. If you can't do that you have no business in this field. IF you're not able to remove yourself from the equation and think about the overall strategy you don't understand the military anyway.

Simply put, EOF rules directly contribute to lower civilian casualties which directly contribute to lower recruitment of enemy fighters. This isn't like a normal war against a country, and it never has been. You're not simply able to shore up fighters by instituting a draft. All of those people want to be there for their own reasons. Don't make the reason a US soldier is killed is because of killing an innocent. That's as bad as being killed by our own weapons.

Response by SFC Jim Mergott made Jan 6 at 2016 4:47 PM

SFC Jim Mergott — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:47:47 -0500

It's fascinating that there is rules in war. I could go on and on about how this kind of bullshit was exactly that. Bullshit.

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Jan 6 at 2016 6:22 PM

SPC Kortney Kistler — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:22:11 -0500

If it moves, shoot it. If it doesn't move shoot it.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Jan 6 at 2016 6:56 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:56:05 -0500

Just an observation and opinion, it seems higher leadership is more interested in this stuff, than those likely of utilizing it. Until there is a training method that gets your field people behind it, its going to remain questionable at minimum, and worthless or ignored at maximum. Too PC for me. If you are "an innocent" who knows you're in a war zone, you should probably just move your ass out of the way of battle. The battle will not often dance on eggshells because you stayed put...nor should it be expected to do so (realistically, if not via policy).

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 9:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:21:16 -0500

Remember EOF is not a 1 2 3 4....step process where 1 must be preformed before 2. If situation dictates go straight to 4. It allows the soldier the ability to handle every situation with control, and support from leadership on any action taken.

Response by SFC Dave Joslin made Jan 7 at 2016 10:04 PM

SFC Dave Joslin — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:04:43 -0500

I never had issue with this in either of my deployments, Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq they IED'd is and took of or called it in and in A-Stan it was gun in gun battles.... I think the real point here is what is the primary objective of war? Inflict so much damage and pain on the enemy that they lose by attrition or surrender - those are the only real end points!

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Jan 14 at 2016 1:14 PM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:14:35 -0500

Our company had teams tasked as convoy escorts in the BIAP area 2006-2007. The teams received ROI that basically nullified EOF. They were basically told to not fire back, if they were attacked. I'm not sure where these orders originated from, but they came down through the national guard battalion that we were placed underneath, since our company deployed as a slice element, instead of as a part of a whole battalion. So, IDK who was responsible for the change in ROE, but I considered it a BS call.