Conventional Wars the Rules of Engagement (Roe)

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 soldiers while lowering their morale and created confusion which led further to non-acceptance of these rules. 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 into the system of division commanders when the United States failed to obtain and establish its stronghold and control over Vietnam. The division commander was concerned on winning the war, and the Rules of Engagement are followed for the purpose of actual strategy to be used to defeat the Vietnamese guerilla.

However, the siege and the war itself failed to sustain and maintain the effort that supposedly control the enemy, and politics was evidently holding the system and the strategic war that division commander clearly outline to be won. Division officers were disappointed and helplessness had turned the officers into accepting their defeat and failure in meeting the goals of their command.

While it is true that the Rules of Engagement worked effectively at the start and in the course of the war-according to norms and rules- the reason and purpose of the war was not completely understood, accepted and internalized by the frontline and key players in the lower and middle chain of command, across many levels. General William Westmoreland.

The General had sufficient and clear perception on the Rules of Engagement used in Vietnam War, and was fully aware of the fact that the goal of the battle was to win; winning the war entails a lot of resources that he could use: strategic plans, analysis of battleground, information and technology and other resources at his disposal.

Equipped with knowledge and resources, the General would have had stirred the war to victory, but he didn't, instead, Westmoreland's search and destroy tactics were ineffective, causing destructions to the grand scale, cost a lot of waste of resources: money, people, time, technology, escalating the war but never guaranteed a military victory. His political ambition and failure to adjust his strategy in "Americanizing" the Vietnam War cost thousands of lives and defeated not only the U.S. But everyone else involved in the war.

(Sorely, 2011) Secretary of Defense Robert Mac Namara. The knowledge of the War in Vietnam was fully understood by the Secretary of Defense. He knew well that U.S. priced the Vietnam War in terms of the strategic U.S.-Soviet opposition in the Asia-Pacific.