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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.