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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.