What are they? Well, the Rules of Engagement vary depending on the situation at hand and the people giving orders. In general, rules of engagement are rules laid down by superior officers which dictate what actions military officers are permitted to take during specific situations. Common rules of engagement for military and civilian interaction are such as: “Do not fire unless fired upon.”
In short, these rules are developed by every government to help ensure that conflicts are not escalated more than necessary. However some people argue that these rules are too infringing to military personal. Take the case of the Vietnam War for instance. Some argue that we gave the enemy an advantage in that war because US troops were restricted from acting in certain situations that could have merited a United States advantage. The difficulty in establishing these rules is that they are often developed by high-ranking officers who are thousands of miles away from the conflict. Once involved in a hostile situation, officers are forced to act based on the rules of engagement they were briefed on, even if they do not directly correspond to the situation at hand. If the situation is complicated, then the commanding offer can contact his superior to get an answer for how the officers should react. However this process is often quite time consuming, as military officers will have to appeal to each officer that ranks above them. Therefore, military personnel sometimes have to make quick decisions based on the information at hand if they do not have time to check with commanding officers.
Why have I brought this issue up? I wanted to discuss this because I find it extremely relevant to the war in Iraq. It is difficult to act based on a set of rules you have been given when a situation escalates to a hostile environment. Perhaps there is a better way. As of now, this system, though flawed at times, seems to be the best arrangement available.
