Do you believe there are too many Rules of Engagement?

Cpl Clinton Britt — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:29:29 -0500

I do believe that there are way to many Rules of Engagement. I know that we have to be held to a higher standard but when know targets that cause mass destruction and terror can be taken out. ehhhhhhh

What do you guys think?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 5:32 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:32:19 -0500

I agree, Cpl Clinton Britt. I just finished "American Sniper" (the book), and Chris Kyle felt he was hamstrung by the RoE he had to abide by. I think we, as Americans, are sometimes too careful on this front. And that can cost lives.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 9:12 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:12:44 -0400

Absolutely too many rule. Should only be one rule of engagement... Accomplish the mission.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Mar 31 at 2015 4:10 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:10:44 -0400

I've thought quite a bit about Rules of Engagement over the years, and have come to the conclusion that they may be important in certain situations, but are a "high water indicator" of when the United States needs to exit a given conflict.

The United States Military is simply not equipped or designed to act as a "police force", and when Rules of Engagement start coming into play that's usually the role that we are trying to fill.

Nobody in their right mind would hand a 19 year old with less than a year of training an assault rifle and ask him to go patrol the streets of Dallas... the results are predictable, and to an extent historic (I'm thinking Kent State, Ohio).

Add to that the mentality of a civilian population that has been programmed by a dictator for a generation to hate Americans and you simply have a recipe for disaster.

Insurgents hide behind Rules of Engagement in order to kill more Americans, and frustration prompts the American to break the Rule of Engagement, which prompts politicians to write stricter Rules of engagement, which gives the insurgents something new to hide behind.

It's a loose, loose catch-22 situation.

The American Military should be tasked with doing what it does best... destroying a nation's ability to wage war. "Peacekeeping" and "Nation-building" should be left to the United Nations with the U.S. military waiting in the wings to turn non-compliance into a smoking hole.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Apr 18 at 2016 12:48 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:48:53 -0400

What were the rules of engagement during the last two wars that we actually won? As opposed to what has happened with each and every one that we were engaged with since.

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Jul 19 at 2016 8:39 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:39:29 -0400

Karen Vaughn, mother of a Fallen Navy SEAL, critiqued the Rules of Engagement at the RNC. I believe the Rules of Engagement are to make War acceptable and to prevent the creation of more terrorists.

Response by SSG Jess Peters made Nov 26 at 2018 10:06 PM

SSG Jess Peters — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 22:06:58 -0500

The primary rule should be see your enemy, kill your enemy. You get shot at, shoot back. On guard duty if your challenge is ignored more than twice, go for it. I remember a major ignored a guards challenge in Germany. He got shot. Fortunately not seriously.. The young soldier got exempted from guard duty. The major admitted he was at fault.