Rules of Engagement for War

Rules of Engagement for War

In summary, there are a number of highly eminent reasons why ROE is creating an adverse effect on American military personnel -- particularly in overseas missions in Afghanistan. They are presenting a fundamental conflict of interest -- soldiers have to consider both their mission objectives as well as the legal ramifications of not adhering to ROE, which creates situations of hesitancy, delay, and American casualties as a result. Thus, it is essential that the U.S. effectively rewrites the role of ROE so that it becomes less of a strategy for war -- which it presumably is in Afghanistan -- and more of a guide for the actions of soldiers. Failure to do so could drastically affect the outcome of battles and missives, while attempting to create political climates in which the U.S. is well-liked and substantially less efficacious in military affairs. The bureaucracy which has implemented ROE as part of America's war strategy needs to be addressed and rectified so that military personnel may achieve their primary objectives without fear of retaliatory legal action taken against them.

ABSTRACT

This document analyzes the present controversy regarding the implementation of Rules of Engagement (ROE) for American military personnel overseas. The employment of ROE in Afghanistan serves as a case study for a policy that is becoming increasingly problematic and hazardous to U.S. troops in this part of the world. Salient factors related to this issue include the propensity for manipulating ROE to serve the political objectives of bureaucratic forces in Washington, D.C., and the fallacious facilitation of ROE as a strategy for war. Ultimately, it appears as though ROE in this case study is presenting a conflict of interest to soldiers which results in a reduction in their efficacy in the field for the sake of America's political image. The author believes this fact should be changed.