Replies

Title is misleading. It should read Rules of Engagement protect innocent civilians.

I don't know if you've ever seen the results of an artillery strike, even a small one with 60mm mortars, but I'm here to tell you even if our targeting was 100% accurate dropping shells in a populated area would be devastating.

OTOH if the civilians in the area are smart they will hightail it out of the area when the guerillas start firing.

But the title is still slanted against the ROE, the only option to having no rules hinder our troops is to have no rules at all.

The Rules of Engagement is the road map that the enemy will use to defeat us. They were successful in Vietnam and will succeed here.

I followed the Rules of Engagement during my three wonderful years in Vietnam, and was glad that I was not one of the statistics. Are no rules better? It depends on whose side you are on.

If you are on the receiving side of the mortar and gunfire the ROE are bad. If you are pointing the weapons, the ROE is great because you know what the target will do. The British had some really great rules and we used them to whip their butts in the Revolutionary War.

The sooner we get the people of Iraq to pick up the ball the better for me, then they can decide what the rules of engagement are.

I feel for those who have sons and daughters who will become statistics from our rules of engagement. One of my sons will be there shortly.