Conventional Wars The rules of Engagement (ROE) used during war remains were established as recognition to the general or international law in the conduct of war, specifically the protection of civilian (International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2007). Rules of Engagement are composed of procedures, power of decision and limitations which the military forces may employ to achieve goals and objectives during the conduct of war. It is issued by authorities in the form of military doctrines, orders, plans and directives which provide authority and limit the use of force, the position of forces and capabilities serves as the guide and lawful command for any offensive or defensive operation in the battleground. The rules of engagement employed during the war in Southeast Asia remained to be the most controversial one in history. As it was intended to decrease the casualties of war and respect international law, the ROE had become a political tool which restricted authority on commanders and soldiers in the war field. The war in the spring and summer of 1965 deprived the American Society reforms of some executive energy and money and dragged for the span of seven years and ended in failure (Bator, 2006). How the Rules of Engagement viewed by various player of the Vietnam War can be summarized through various perspectives of these six levels in the chain of command:

Individual Soldiers in the field.

As Krepinevich (1986) wrote, the United States can look back on Vietnam War as the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and wrong army. The soldiers, though prepared for battle and had won several wars in the previous battlefield, were confused and had different understanding on the rules of engagement directed for Vietnam War. The rules of engagement restricted the military in its offensive operation building up frustration among...

The rule imposed to them simply allowed them to fight, but at the same time risk their lives for the sake of the same rules. Example of such a rule was described by aviation soldier where he was not allowed to shoot anyone, even the enemy, unless there was a shoot-out or gun fired at them. The tendency was for the soldier to manipulate their craft to put evidence of the attack, risking their lives to be able to fight back. The worst among the factors that contributed to the failure to win the war was for the soldiers' lack of understanding on the reason and purpose of the war, undermining the Rules of Engagement Principles.
Battalion Commanders. The commanders should maintain discipline of troops and provide guidance of soldiers in combat. Psychological and physical stress took toll on the leaders of the battle. The rules of engagement which is very limiting, forced the commanders to conduct operations which risked not only the lives of their soldiers, but also their integrity and authority, their morale as leaders of the command. As the rules of engagement directed, the conduct of military operations are restricted and should first be approved by the authorities in the main headquarters. They follow orders blindly without understanding fully what the purpose of war was. The lack of understanding the critical analysis on the appropriate use of the Rules of Engagement put them into confusion, and using the tactics of the large scale bombardments made the command muddled with uncertainty and lack of clarity, especially the overall strategy of the battle.

Division Commanders. Although the division commanders were more clear in what they wanted to achieve in that war, frustration was built and gradually crept…