Roe in Afghanistan

¶ … WARFARE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (EDIT CUSTOMER'S DRAFT) One of the most contentious issues in contemporary warfare is the concept of rules of engagement (ROE). Just as the Vietnam War highlighted the concept in the 1960s, America's current involvement in Afghanistan provides the contextual background in the early 21st Century. In principle, ROI ensure that combat troops comply with the international conventions of warfare, even if our enemies are not. The Commander-in-Chief strongly supports ROI concept at both the philosophical and practical level, aiming to balance military objectives and politics.

Nevertheless, problems have emerged, with the application of the primacy of rules of engagement in the field. Most significantly, military leaders sometimes focus so much on ROE that soldiers in the field are handicapped operationally. Pausing to consider rules of engagement is less practical in the field than it is in theory. Sometimes, the cloud of ROE results in soldiers' become tentative, fearing criticism from superiors so much that they become less effective at their jobs and exposed to greater risk of harm from enemy combatants.

Rules of Engagement and the War in Afghanistan Rules of Engagement (ROE) are fundamentally because they define acceptable military actions. Applying ROE correctly is one critical component of successfully address the overall mission and purpose for military interventions.

According to Vallely (2013), "these rules are in place for reasons that both protect the military and respect the international conventions of war." Interestingly, in the same report, Vallely (2013) goes on to state "ROE can be conveniently manipulated by the political objectives and military mission limitations essential to the construction and application of ROE." That is what seems to be happening in the current war situation in Afghanistan, if reports are accurate. "Americans are weary of war, and understandably skeptical about promises of easy military contests with positive outcomes" (Jenkins 2013 para.6).

Our politicians may be promising outcomes to the American people they cannot deliver, largely because legislators typically have no military experenience. When bureaucrats establish ROE, they often create rules that unintentionally hamper the American soldier who is fully engaged with dangerous enemies. Some of these rules are detrimental to the American soldier and American lives are often lost because of ROE. Politicians sometimes focus so much on winning the heart and minds of occupied populations that war-fighters' lives are jeopardized, sometimes by the very people politicians hope to placate.

Michael Jenkins is a decorated combat veteran who has received the Department of the Army's highest award for his service. According to Jenkins (2013) "the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan created an unwanted psychology in our soldiers (and) the fear of retribution and the fear of being court-martialed pre-destined the forces to lose against the nation's enemies." Jenkins understands.