I was watching the Military channel one day and they had a special on a Marine Expidetionary Unit. These are some of the ROEs (Rules of Engagement) that they listed.
*Dont shoot civilians
*If they are approaching you with a firearm, they are hostile
*If they are running from you with a firearm, theyre still hostile
*Dont shoot if theyre trying to surrender
Thats all I can remember, if anyone can elaborate more, please do.
Sounds about right.
Was this is Iraq ? The ROE should depend on the situation which is being dealt with, the date of these rules will probably be an indication of this.
If it means that people carrying firearms running from the USMC are still liable to be engaged, then the ROE are more ‘robust’ than those which the Brits have to use in NI.
For example, a man with a primed grenade in his hand may not be engaged until the moment he is actually throwing the gren.
Not before nor after, as in either case he is not a threat to life.
As you can imagine it means that the troops’ hands are tightly bound.
However it’s horses for courses and the sit in Iraq, while politically charged, is a different kettle of fish to that in NI.
That, and the fact that some politicos wish their careers to be enhanced at the expense of others’ lives…
Was this is Iraq ? The ROE should depend on the situation which is being dealt with, the date of these rules will probably be an indication of this.
If it means that people carrying firearms running from the USMC are still liable to be engaged, then the ROE are more ‘robust’ than those which the Brits have to use in NI.
For example, a man with a primed grenade in his hand may not be engaged until the moment he is actually throwing the gren.
Not before nor after, as in either case he is not a threat to life.
As you can imagine it means that the troops’ hands are tightly bound.
However it’s horses for courses and the sit in Iraq, while politically charged, is a different kettle of fish to that in NI.
That, and the fact that some politicos wish their careers to be enhanced at the expense of others’ lives…[/quote]
it was for Iraq, and who wouldnt shoot at a guy walking up to them with a hand grenade?! if you dont your just askin to get blown up!!
Is it a grenade or is it a stone? Has he found it and is trying to hand it in so that it can be disposed of safely?
Cuts I would add that it would also depend on the local situation, petrol bombers were fair game only if the GOC had given local authority due to prevalence of use (never heard of him ever giving the order though). At one point in Belfast coffee jar bombs (improvised grenade made from a 500g coffee jars and normally thrown by kids) had a weapons free provided it had not been thrown and the fuse was alight.
ROE will depend on situation and should allow flexibility at GOC level not the guy on the ground.
PzKpfw VI Tiger, 2nd of Foot is correct.
Having served in NI he knows the situations that can occur and how the terrs can and will turn things to their own advantage.
Even in Iraq how would it look to the civilian populace if we started offing locals that were attempting a hand-in of weapons or equipment ?
Hearts and minds ring a bell anyone ?
The coffee jars can be a bit of a bugger to spot but they’re dangerous enough and can still leave you wondering which genius made the ROE !
The modern braced catapults, (slingshots for the benefit of the Cousins,) are no kiddies toy either and as far as I remember were a prime reason for the nape protectors being issued. (Correct me if I’m in error.)
As 2nd says, the GOC is responsible for any changes in ROE and hopefully will have a decent Int Cell giving him the actual lowdown.
PzKpfw VI Tiger, 2nd of Foot is correct.
Having served in NI he knows the situations that can occur and how the terrs can and will turn things to their own advantage.
Even in Iraq how would it look to the civilian populace if we started offing locals that were attempting a hand-in of weapons or equipment ?
Hearts and minds ring a bell anyone ?
The coffee jars can be a bit of a bugger to spot but they’re dangerous enough and can still leave you wondering which genius made the ROE !
The modern braced catapults, (slingshots for the benefit of the Cousins,) are no kiddies toy either and as far as I remember were a prime reason for the nape protectors being issued. (Correct me if I’m in error.)
As 2nd says, the GOC is responsible for any changes in ROE and hopefully will have a decent Int Cell giving him the actual lowdown.[/quote]
I’m definately not saying that he’s wrong Cuts, but if someone was walking up to one of our troops with a grenade or a bomb making it look like he was trying to surrender, he could just waltz right up and blow everyone over there up. It just doesn’t make perfect sense
(My emboldenment)
True mate, very often the lads on the ground are dumbfounded at the ROE issued.
But it must be seen that, (to use a buzzword,) the ‘bigger picture’ is in the mind of those writing the ROE.
We, the allies, must be seen to be the ‘white hats’.
We must be seen to be squeaky clean, and if that means that lads are prosecuted for doing something that might at the time have made perfect sense but still disobeying ROE, then so be it.
Soldiers have always had the rough end of the stick when polticos stuff up, but we knew that when we joined…
I have very personal experience of the Rules of Engagement as used by British forces (pull up a sandbag).
While I was out in Iraq on Op Telic (no number), I was involved in the first push from Kuwait into Iraq. I was serving with a field hospital and was part of the advance party that went forward first.
We had stopped at one point and were stagging on when an Arabic looking gentleman approached us holding a bundle in his arms. The two of us nearest raised our weapons and called out for him to stop and identify himself (in English IIRC - didn’t recall the correct Arabic phrase while my sphincter was trying to detach from the rest of my body!).
We followed the card correctly, if somewhat nervously, but he didn’t stop at this (funnily enough). At this point we both made ready and prepared to fire if he came any closer (at this point he was still some distance away). When he saw and heard us make ready, he stopped immediately and dropping to his knees he showed us his very young son who was very ill.
I suspect that under the ROE promulgated above here in this thread, both the father and son would now be dead.
As it happens, both father and son were fine after some medical care.
The threat of trained soldiers preparing to fire was enough to stop him in his tracks…
Edited for clarity
But some of those Al Queada extremeists wouldnt stop there, if they are bold enough to do a suicide hijack and car bombs then i dont see why the sight of armed soldiers would deter them. But maybe it would, im speaking from no military experience here (too young, i plan to join someday though)
Thanks for that Tubby, without wanting to sound cliched, its a remarkable reponsibility carrying weapons and I do not like to think what the ramifications of making the wrong decisions might be.
I can only hope that the armchair commando doesnt try to add any of his “expereinces” in order to supercede your post
Well done Tubby for being the first poster to mention the pucker factor
But some of those Al Queada extremeists wouldnt stop there, if they are bold enough to do a suicide hijack and car bombs then i dont see why the sight of armed soldiers would deter them. But maybe it would, im speaking from no military experience here (too young, i plan to join someday though)[/quote]
That is the problem that the US army is facing. It is very difficult to counter an enemy that is willing to kill no matter what. The old saying “my job is not to die for my country, but to ensure that the enemy dies for his” no longer applies if he is hell bent on dieing as well. We have also seen instances of bombers chained to cars so that they do not change their minds.
Generally ROFs are classified as restricted or higher.