Rules of engagement in conflict and international relations

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are necessary to a certain degree during wars and skirmishes in order to determine what actions military personnel can take when confronted with immediate and personal dangerous or violent situations. Determining a correct ROE, however, is the key to successfully addressing the overall mission and purpose for military interventions in the first place. As one recent author states "these rules are in place for reasons that both protect the military and respect the international conventions of war" (Vallely, 2013). What is interesting about this subject is the fact that in the same report, Vallely 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" (Vallely, 2013). That is what seems to be happening in the current war situation in Afghanistan if what experts are saying is to be believed.

Michael Jenkins is a decorated combat veteran who has received the Department of the Army's highest award for his service. Jenkins states that "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, 2013). This is an interesting statement in that the person who states this is quite experienced in the military realm. Jenkins understands what the ROE relate to, and he understands how they can be manipulated to become more hindrance than help to the soldier in the field. In fact in his statement Jenkins says "the ROE have become an enemy, soldiers are afraid to take risks" (2013). It can be argued that soldiers, under the duress that oftentimes can be associated with combat, need the ability to react in sometimes unstructured manners; or in other words the ability to take risks without fear of reprisal or retribution from superiors. That does not mean that the soldier can wipe out entire villages of women and children, but it does mean that they should have the right to protect themselves from the bad guys.

These soldiers should not have to burdened with guidelines that "can be entangled with political agendas and philosophies" (Vallely, 2013, para 3). As an example, a reporter recently wrote that the ROE in Afghanistan seem to be making "Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy" (Zinke, 2014). Zinke describes a scenario where the American soldier can be 100% sure that the enemy is hiding in an Afghan dwelling but still not be able to engage; that has to be frustrating, as well as dangerous, for the soldier. If Americans are truly in the war to win, to assist the country (in this case Afghanistan) in transitioning to a democracy, then the American soldiers must be able to fight the enemy, especially when they know where the enemy is. In Afghanistan, it is difficult enough to determine exactly who the enemy really is, let alone determine where the enemy is. When the determination of who and where has been sufficiently analyzed, the American soldier should have the right to engage. As Zinke so succinctly puts it "what's happening is we're losing our ability to fight overseas" (2014, para 6). Instead of the ROE assisting our soldiers, according to Zinke it is being turned into a "document that can be used effectively against us" (para. 3).

Another protagonist against the ROE is Dana West who has been around the Afghanistan war for a number of years. In 2009 West wrote "we should fight all wars to destroy the enemies" (West, 2009). Then in 2014 she reiterated "what they are doing to our military, our treasury, our power and our prestige is an unconscionable national betrayal" (West, 2014, para. 1). These are harsh words from the standpoint that our Commander in Chief is the person who most strongly advocates for the implementation and adherence to the ROE. Obama's justification is that the Americans must do more than just kill enemy soldiers, they must also be even more than one hundred percent sure that other casualties not take place. According to Newsweek, this is a laudable and achievable goal.

Newsweek states "the war aim in a war against terror is not territory, or access to resources, or conversion to our political way of life...it is the protection of civilians within the rule of law" (Bobbitt, 2010, p. 42).