The rules that state our guys cannot return fire until fired upon, to me, a peacetime old vet, sure stink.

I wonder how many of our guys were hit by that lucky first shot by an insurgent? I bet it's a damn high per centage that nobody will ever publish or talk about. How many of our guys will never go home because of this assinine rule.

I've never heard anyone complain about it. Are they ordered not to? Or is it not as frequent as I suspect it is.

That recent MP whose guard dog scared the poor prisoner when he barked at him that got court martialled and mustered out make me want to puke. (my being an ex-dog handler myself..).

Am I way off base? Any thoughts from you patriots that went to Iraq? Sorry, but I had to let off steam somewhere before my head explodes Thanks for listening.

It sucks, and I'm sure it's gotten quite a few killed.

I served as an MP in Iraq and I know well about the Abu Ghraib Scandal; IMHO, is much ado about nothing; the Army's so hell-bent on being PC that it endangers the lives of its soldiers to apeace the Libtards and the Media.

That MP Dog Handler got the short end of the stick, mostly because the military wanted to make examples out of the MPs that were convicted; you notice that no high ranking officers (Intelligence or Military Police) were ever disciplined for the incident, the most senior ranked person that was disciplined was an E-6.

It is hard to fight a war when you have to look over your shoulder and see a damn CNN cameraman recording your every move; then have to be "considerate" about how we treat the prisoners. Considerate my ass! That guy lobbed an RPG at my Humvee; he tried to kill me! You want me to give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his merry way.

OH HELL NO!!!

I refuse to take a bullet just so that I look PC for the rest of the sheeple. I am coming home alive under my own power and with all body parts accounted for; if I have to kick the living crap out of a captured insurgent to prevent an IED from killing any more of my brothers, BY GOD I WILL KICK HIS ASS 'TILL ALLAH COMES DOWN FORM THE MOUNTAINS; AND THEN I'LL KICK HIS ASS TOO.

ROE looks good on paper.........  What happens in the red zone, stays in the red zone....or was that Las Vegas?

I have to agree, the ROE is restrictive as hell.  The Army (where my experience comes from) seems to want its soldiers to fight the war with one hand behind their back.  We weren't allowed to use mortars because they caused too much "collateral damage"  meanwhile the AIF was dropping them daily-usually outside our wire, killing civilians.  My gunner got his ass reamed and would've been article 15'd for using his 50 cal on a mosque where we took RPG's from if it hadn't been for our CPT going to bat for him.  I had to sweat it out when I thought I was going up on charges for shooting a guy at a checkpoint. My CO took care of me though...

They even took away our flashbangs after some joe in the scout plt used one without "permission"  ...this ultra-pc shit is one of the reasons I decided to get out.  

I couldnt begin to imagine what they are going thru trying to balance everything under the scrutiny of the media and still stay alive.

My hat is off to you all over there!

ROE are there because we are better than the terrorists.  
ROE prevents us from being a “terrorist state”.
We do what's right even though it gets our people killed.
Sure we can throw it away but our actions would be judged as criminal.
Iraq is not a war anymore.  It’s a police action.  We are not there to kill anyone that may be a threat.  Let them shoot first.  They can’t shoot for shit anyway.  2000+ in 3 years most from IEDs is proof they are not effective and they know if they start shit with us they will die.  

When it comes to barking dogs and other forms of torture I wish we didn’t have to do that but I wish we didn’t have to fight to begin with.  

End the end we need to conduct ourselves in a noble and dignified manor and do our best to make the USA the shining castle on the hill that we know it to be.

Doing less puts us in the same category as Stalin and Hitler.  

When did the ROE change? During OIF II, you could shoot if you felt threatened. You did not have to be shot at first.

Quoted: When did the ROE change? During OIF II, you could shoot if you felt threatened. You did not have to be shot at first.

I was there during OIF II as well, the ROE is one thing, but panty-waist commanders who are too busy looking up instead of around tend to be mega-pc and worry about everything.  Abu Grahib scared brass like nobodies business.  

And Abu Graib had nothing to do with the ROE. That was a treatment of prisoners issue.

Isn't that the senior officer immediate action drill? Panic then over react?

By the way, where you stationed? I was at FOB Summerall near Bayji.

It didn't affect ROE, but it made most comanders scared of being the next scapegoat.

I was at FOB Headhunter in Baghdad. It was a grade-A dumpster.

Compared to other countries, American RsOE are positively free-fire.

ROEs exist for a reason, even if the grunt on the ground doesn't understand them. There are stupid rules, but they usually involve trying to go after insurgents while dressed in some sort of hybrid of Robocop and a medievil knight, or making sure you're not wearing the wrong colour socks at the Anaconda chow hall.

But in a nutshell, you do not need to let the other guy fire the first shot.

HK940 has put it rather well.

NTM

When I left in Nov 2005, the ROE did not restrict us to firing only when fired upon. If we felt threatened, we fired. No questions asked. The only restrictive part of the ROE was you had to have positive ID on your target.

Our ROE was;

RPGs shoot to kill

Belt Feed MGs, shoot to kill

Mortar, rocket or IED teams caught in the act, shoot to kill

black jamis with green headband, shoot to kill

At anytime I fell My life is in danger, shoot to kill

Pretty good ROE if I say so myself.

Alright, let me clarify.  After posting I realized that my problem wasn't really with the ROE-with the exception of crew served restrictions.

My beef is with spineless motherfuckers up top who bow down to CNN and worry about getting their next gold star and pat on the back from their boss rather than doing everything in their power to take care of joe.  

Edited to add;  "even if the grunt on the ground doesn't understand them"  WTFO?  Sounds like a condescending LT --or a PAC clerk

Quoted: Edited to add;  "even if the grunt on the ground doesn't understand them"  WTFO?  Sounds like a condescending LT --or a PAC clerk

Curiously enough, I am an LT. Which has what to do with the price of coffee, exactly?

Now, if you'd care to point out where I'm wrong... The very fact this thread exists seems to point out the fact that not everyone understands them.

The guy in the field is obviously far more concerned with the immediate effects of RsOE. He wants to go home alive to mom, wife, kids, apple pie, whatever. All other matters, from his point of view, are in the background. I spent my year there, I'm quite familiar with the feeling.

Generals and politicians, on the other hand, look at the big, long-term picture. They can afford to do that as they are not distracted by the thought that they might be killed by that bloke wandering around the corner. A failure to note that the big picture is worth more than individual lives will result in the loss of the whole operation.

Finish this statement: "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander..."

NTM

The british walked in line to battle in the 1700's/1800's and were beaten badly,particulary by USA. You fight by the rules in a life or death situation and your dead.Cover your and your buds ass's and shoot first and often! Damn I wish I was POTUS!

The reason it matters is because you look down on those you command.  Just cause you've been to college and got the shiny doodad on your hat doesn't mean that you are any better than those 18 year old joes in your plt.
I've had a fair sampling of PL's, some thought their rank made them better than enlisted, they tended to think they'd make better SL's than the E-6's in those slots, they enjoyed talking down to those of us with an E in front of our grade.  Micro managed the hell out of things and did a number on morale.

Quoted: The reason it matters is because you look down on those you command.

OK.. What makes you think I look down on anyone in my command?

Would you have preferred if I used the term 'Joes' instead of 'grunts?' No demeaning was intended, it's a common term for the chap at the pointy end. The point still stands: People at the front line have a different perspective on things than people with big O-ranks who are paid to look at the big picture.

Just cause you've been to college and got the shiny doodad on your hat doesn't mean that you are any better than those 18 year old joes in your plt.

Neither does it automatically mean I am wrong. Even an LT can be right, twice a day.

I've had a fair sampling of PL's, some thought their rank made them better than enlisted, they tended to think they'd make better SL's than the E-6's in those slots, they enjoyed talking down to those of us with an E in front of our grade.  Micro managed the hell out of things and did a number on morale.

I'm sorry you've had such an experience. I've encountered a few such LTs in my time as well. Rather cringeworthy.

NTM

Good points all around.  I admit I automatically assumed you looked down on enlisted/Infantry.  I think the cav ruined officers for me.

Perspective does change with proximity.  But there is entirely too much CYA bullshit and second guessing going on in the echelon's above reality-NCO and Officer.  Actually, its more like sacrifice a joe to save an officer these days.  Saw way too much of that....

As for LT's getting to be right twice a day, I'll buy that.  But not with anything involving a map and a compass!

Quoted: As for LT's getting to be right twice a day, I'll buy that.  But not on a landnav course!

You kidding? Land nav is a doddle.

"Sergeant? Where are we?"

Easy peasy. The wisdom of age... (If I'm older than my PSG, with about the same amount of time in uniform, why should I do the work? :P)

NTM

Quoted: What happens in the red zone, stays in the red zone....or was that Las Vegas?

No man, it's TDY.

Quoted: Our ROE was; RPGs shoot to kill Belt Feed MGs, shoot to kill Mortar, rocket or IED teams caught in the act, shoot to kill black jamis with green headband, shoot to kill At anytime I fell My life is in danger, shoot to kill Pretty good ROE if I say so myself.

Was it like that everywhere?  Several of your guys (though, I'm not totally convinced of the memory of two of them) was telling me that they had to wait for permission to fire upon people aiming and launching mortars at them.  I've also heard similar from people in a different unit in the same general location.

I was just a glorified security guard so that might have had something to do with our ROE specifics, or the unit that trained us could have been ful of shit (which seemed to be our general opinion), but we were trained that even if someone jumped our fences and had a gun, we couldn't shoot unless they were obviously a threat.  As in at least aiming at us or someone else.  Not quite sure where they got that from.  We had a looser explanation by ou chain of command.

I think it was the CFLCC one that said some crap like show your intent to shoot by loading your weapon, and something about shooting to wound.  Yeah, ok.

Though, again, I was just a glorified security guard in a very nice place so my personal experiences are very different than most.

1ST Infantry Divisions ROE was positive ID of target, shoot if you feel threatened and shoot to kill. Life in the Big Red One was great down range.

Do you really care what the ROE says?  No matter what, you make sure that yourself and the guy next to you go home, alive and well.  If that is not within the ROE, then it should be!  Stay safe :)

Quoted: but we were trained that even if someone jumped our fences and had a gun, we couldn't shoot unless they were obviously a threat.  As in at least aiming at us or someone else.  Not quite sure where they got that from.  We had a looser explanation by ou chain of command.

If you were working under, say, British control, that may well be the case. As I said, American RsOE are very loose compared to other countries.

For example, a British rule: Person has Molotov Cocktail. You may not shoot. Person lights Molotov Cocktail. You may not shoot. Person cocks arm behind his head to throw it at you. You may shoot. Molotov cocktail has left person's hand. You may not shoot. Basically, the British definition of threat is a little more than just holding a weapon. They also have a much stronger emphasis on capture over kill, their standard patrol tactics show this.

Our Engineers shot an Iraqi with an AK one day, who was advancing in the general direction of a hidden squad-sized OP, without as much as a warning. It was a farmer on his own land who was looking for an animal that was attacking his livestock. His family, as you can imagine, wasn't particularly happy. Within American RsOE, outside of some others. Have we made friends or enemies of that clan, do you think?

I think it was the CFLCC one that said some crap like show your intent to shoot by loading your weapon, and something about shooting to wound.  Yeah, ok.

The 'show intent to shoot' is usually used in civil disturbance situtations, not when people are shooting at you. You're kindof allowed to skip that one then. I think they're just making up the shoot to wound bit. Even in domestic riot control in the US, we're instructed shoot to kill.

NTM