The Rules of Engagement are often the subject of heated debate, whether they are restrictive enough or too restrictive. No matter what side of the argument one finds him or herself, there is almost always a call for revision. The purpose of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) is to ensure the safety of civilians in combat zones while maintaining combat effectiveness of the troops deployed there.
The problems arise if (when) the rules are too restrictive of US forces, then it exposes them to more danger than is necessary, making them more and more defenseless. If, on the other hand, the rules are too lax then the civilian populace is in danger of being more readily gunned down out of suspicion or just false assumptions. The happy medium is a tough place to find with such a complicated issue, which is why the complications need to be taken out of the ROE all together. There needs to be a set of ROEs for a few various situations that are most frequently encountered by US forces, such as taking a town, city, or enemy held territory, carrying out operations in an occupied town or city, and things of that nature. The most important thing is that the rules be flexible in their application but not in their interpretations, yet extremely simple so that every soldier, marine, airman and sailor can have them easily memorized without doubt as to whether they have the correct interpretation of the rules. Being obsessed with protecting civilians without considering the danger it poses to our own soldiers is unacceptable. They must both be protected, with the emphasis on the soldiers.
