Current Rules of Engagement

[parishioner]

As I was reading Lone Survivor,(thanks to the recommendations from many on this site. By the way great book so far) I notice that the author is quite perturbed by the rules of engagement and he concluded that his teammates could possibly be alive had they been different.

He thinks they can constrain a soldier from performing his mission effectivley.

What do you think about them?

[Iraqgunz]

I think that if you read the book and understand what was being said, there was a moral debate as to what should be done. A decision was made and they had to deal with it. In such a situation I don't think anyone can really Monday morning quarterback it.

Go back in time and look at the SAS team Bravo- Two Zero (first Gulf War). They were in almost the same situation and acted the same way.

[parishioner]

I guess I should have finished reading the book.
I feel stupid now. :(

[RD62]

I've read the book a few times, and don't really think Lutrell (sp?) had a problem with the ROE, but more with the liberal media, and the justice system, that they feared would crucify them if they did what they knew they should.

He seemed to stress pretty heavily that they, and others like them, feared a courtmartial and criminal charges if they killed the herders that they knew would surely give away their position, which of course they did. And that they pretty well released them knowing that they were signing their own death warrants.

I agree with him, and it aches my heart to know that there are American warriors in harms way that may and have lost their lives because they second guessed doing what they knew was right for fear of persecution by Monday morning quarterbacks thousands of miles away that had days in the comfort of their own homes and offices to dissect the decisions these men made in minutes in the dusty streets of Iraq or rugged mountains of Afgahanistan during the heat of combat. MMQB's secure in the comfort of the very protection they provide... To borrow a saying from Lightfighter, it sickitates me!

-RD62

[basilhaydenO]

Read the book and when he mentioned how one of the herders was glaring at them even after they gave him food, I kept thinking that they better off them or let them go and abort the mission and get the hell out of dodge now. It was a strange feeling reading that book and remembering how I watched the scenario being reported on FOX news as it was happening. They reported that all four had been killed, then a few days later reported that one had been found alive. I remember wondering to myself how they could have made that mistake in reporting.

[AirmanAtwood]

Sorry to change the subject but, is the book being discussed worth a read?

[Iraqgunz]

Uh, yeah.


Sorry to change the subject but, is the book being discussed worth a read?

[Mac679]

An open internet forum is probably not the best place to have a discussion on ROE.

Just my 2 cents.

[maximus83]

I agree with him, and it aches my heart to know that there are American warriors in harms way that may and have lost their lives because they second guessed doing what they knew was right for fear of persecution by Monday morning quarterbacks thousands of miles away that had days in the comfort of their own homes and offices to dissect the decisions these men made in minutes in the dusty streets of Iraq or rugged mountains of Afgahanistan during the heat of combat.
-RD62

+1.

Guess I need to read this book, had not heard of it until now.

[Cagemonkey]

Great book. The main debate seems to be about the Moral dilemma as what to do when your a covert recon force operating behind enemy lines and your presence has been discovered by local civilians. Do you kill them and dispose of the bodies and continue the mission? Do you capture and restrain them? Continue the mission and release or inform locals of their location after the mission. Do you let them go and abort the mission? Do you restrain them and abort the mission? Realize that their are serious consequences for each choice. Personally, I think that they should have captured the Herders and cancelled the mission. Realize that the disappearance of the Herders and the unattended flock would most likely have caused alarm among the locals. Also, realize that the lack of comms (broken radio) contributed to their tragic fate. Not being there personally, none of us can second guess the decisions made that day. This story will probably be debated for years to come.

[RD62]

Uh, yeah.

+1 +1

-RD62

[RD62]

Great book. The main debate seems to be about the Moral dilemma as what to do when your a covert recon force operating behind enemy lines and your presence has been discovered by local civilians. Do you kill them and dispose of the bodies and continue the mission? Do you capture and restrain them? Continue the mission and release or inform locals of their location after the mission. Do you let them go and abort the mission? Do you restrain them and abort the mission? Realize that their are serious consequences for each choice. Personally, I think that they should have captured the Herders and cancelled the mission. Realize that the disappearance of the Herders and the unattended flock would most likely have caused alarm among the locals. Also, realize that the lack of comms (broken radio) contributed to their tragic fate. Not being there personally, none of us can second guess the decisions made that day. This story will probably be debated for years to come.

Knowing that they had been hunting the SOB they were after and had thus far been unsuccessful in locating him, and knowing that if they were able to take him out they would undoubtedly be saving the lives of their comrades, I'm sure also made any decision that much more difficult.

As you mentioned, they were pretty much damned no matter what they did. Kill the herders and they will be missed. Someone will come looking for them, and you may or may not still be operating in the area. You also may run the risk of criminal prosecution. Restrain them, and the same may be true. Let them go... Well you see how that worked out. Scrub the mission and the target lives to bomb your buddies again another day.

They made their choice, and took their licks, and one of them made it out to tell us the story. I understand why they made the choice they did. I don't know if I would have had the balls to do the same. But their story makes me proud they are my countrymen, and glad they are out there at the pointy end doing the necessary things that some don't like to think about.

May they rest in peace.


-RD62

[losbronces]

Sorry to change the subject but, is the book being discussed worth a read?

Definitely.

[AirmanAtwood]

I bought it a few hours ago. I'll start it tonight :D

[SloaneRanger]

Wasn't just Andy McNab and the Bravo two zero boys. Your very own ODA525 under WO Chad Balwanz had almost exactly the same experience. Luckily (thanks to some very talented CAS pilot skills) all eight came home. It was 2 children in their case, McNab's case was children also. I can't see any of our guys killing a child in that situation. No matter what. As one of the SAS guys said at the time ..."we're the SAS not the SS"..

Problem is once you're discovered you're buggered anyway you look at it. Kill the IP's and you'll still be discovered when they come looking for them. Your brick would at least have some time to put some distance between them and the LUP/incident site and get to one of the pre-arranged LUPs/RVs made for that exact reason (and in case of an ambush/contact where the brick gets split up) to expedite extraction. Of course if the patrol comms are tits up then your SOL and it's shank's pony back home.

I don't know about USSOF SOPs but UKSFs have multiple RVs/LUPs. The first emergency RV is the Patrol RV - usually a prearranged geographical feature or grid reference, which will be kept open for four hours after the contact. Missing this RV means a longer walk to the Troop RV, usually the last overnight rest-stop, which is manned for a further 12 hours. If this, too, is missed, one would have to find their own way to either the Border RV (insertion LZ) or to the War RV (the nearest security force position).

LT. Murphy did what he believed an honorable god fearing man would do. He knew he would pay the ultimate price for his decision which of course, tragically, he did. His men were/are warriors. They knew and accepted the risks. That these men had to double guess themselves in the arena because of the liberal media (let's face it the military may well not have brought capital charges had they killed the herders but for the fact that they too would fear the liberal media propoganda backlash if the story broke) just goes to show how out of touch our ROE currently are. Remember when it was a case of all's fair in love and war?