Replies

My personal view is that the current/recent ROE are too restrictive. However, most of my career military officer friends disagree strongly, and after hearing their perspective their reasoning is rational, just a different way of thinking about war. I believe in total war; killing anyone who appears to be hostile or supporting hostiles for whatever reason, without reservation will set a clear example that you are with us or against us. I believe since these cultures only respect force, and only side with the perceived winner with no real concept of loyalty, that this is the way to go. So, anyone acting suspiciously, providing material support or intelligence support would be fair game to get lit up.

Obviously, this is not our policy. Surprisingly, most experienced military officers from recent conflicts that I know disagree with my opinion, saying that showing great restraint can be effective in fostering cooperation and trust, and for a variety of complex reasons it is worth the risk. I can't easily imagine a situation in which this would change, given how the current ROE has been accepted and ingrained in the military professional culture nearly universally by field grade/general officers. It would take a new generation to change this I think, or an extremely different conflict in which our restrictive ROE put us at a distinct disadvantage against a near peer nation that could leverage the disadvantage to produce tactical successes.