Comparing The Laws Of War And Rules Of Engagement

The 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, a unit known as the Rakkasans, were conducting Operation Iron Triangle in 2006 in Iraq when soldiers killed eight unarmed Iraqi men. The US military severely reprimanded the Commander of the Rakkasans, COL Michael Steele, for the unethical command climate his leadership allowed to exist within the unit at that time. This unit will need a new commander that can set and maintain an effective, ethical command climate through his leadership. That new commander should resolve the issues that led to the reported war crime in order to establish a culture that perpetuates an ethical command climate.

Leadership has to determine the desired end and communicate it to our military commanders. The leaders must also make available the ways and means for combat actions to achieve the desired end. The combination of supportive leadership and clearly defined end results provide a pathway for the forces to execute strategies to arrive at the end result. Leadership also must garner approval for sufficient ways and means for the military to function effectively. Let us take, for example, the protection of Israel in the 1991 Gulf War from the Iraqi Scud missile attacks accomplished by the United States’ Patriot Missile System. If approval for the cost of the defense weaponry and the funding of the crews to run the missile batteries did not get approved, Israel would have been virtually defenseless. The ways and means approved and placed in operation achieved the goal of protecting our ally. Had the approval not been secured, the outcome of the war may have changed dramatically with the inclusion of Arab nations potentially splitting their alliance with the United States to fight Israel if they displayed any aggression in lieu of protecting their own nation within its borders. The 1991 Gulf War had sufficient ways and means available for the conflict but the end goal was not completely attained. The lack of resistance of the Iraqi forces following the massive air campaign led to an early termination of the war in what was later determined by the United States to be a rational stopping point, but turned out to be an underestimation of Iraqi solidarity. The rational end point was the depletion of the Iraqi fighting force to levels incapable of mounting a major counteroffensive. The United States did not meet one of the desired ends, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at the end of the conflict. Our execution of a

The book Black Hearts opened my eyes to how leadership from a single Officer can have a grappling effect on such a wide range of soldiers from the lowest of ranks. One of the best takeaways from Black Hearts is to never do anything: illegal, unethical, or immoral. Although this is a easy statement to repeat, Black Hearts demonstrates the difficulties that lie behind these words. It has also painted a picture of how leadership can topple extremely quickly from a top down view. The Army is portrayed in a bad light throughout the book relentlessly. This is due to the concentration of poor leadership of the 1-502nd Regiment (Referred to as “First Strike”), a battalion of the 101st Airborne Division.

If a soldier doesn't follow orders while in a combat zone this makes them combat ineffective and when a

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the real world consequences of when Army leaders become complacent dealing with foreign national soldiers, and the day to day operations while in a combat theatre. To gather lessons learned from the example discussed in order to lower the probability of a reoccurrence among the force. Through the example demonstrate the need for Army leaders to constantly fight against complacency, and the extreme importance that leaders know their soldiers, and place their soldiers’ needs before their own. The scenario discussed was a real incident that took place in Iraq in 2009, at a Coalition Outpost (COP) approximately 30 kilometers south of Mosul, in a city called Hammam al-Alil.

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

The holocaust was a was a genocide where six million European Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. The Nazis who came into power in Germany in January 1933, believed that the Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, who were considered "inferior," were a major threat to the German racial community. Between 1941 and 1944, Nazi German authorities deported millions of Jews from Germany, from their own homes, and from the countries of many of its Axis allies to ghettos and to killing centers, often called extermination camps, where they were murdered in specially developed gassing facilities. “In times of war, the law falls silent” – Marcus Tullius Cicero I selected this quote because I believe that it really reflects on the holocaust itself and the experience that Elie Wiesel shared in his book Night. “In times of war, the law falls silent” – Marcus Tullius Cicero, I believe that this quote pertains to what occurred during the war and holocaust.

The United States has ratified international laws such as the law of armed conflict that govern how and in what manner the United States will conduct warfare. Within these documents are definitions of non-combatants and protected peoples who will not be brutalized or killed during the conduct of war. However, revolutionaries and insurgents frequently use these ethical guidelines against greater powers. Insurgent tactics may include the use of women and children to detonate or carry an explosive or use them as a reconnaissance force. Adhering to the ethical law and rules that guide U.S. soldiers may result in mission failure and the death or some or many of your teammates.

There are several different purposes for the rules of engagement (ROE). Such as implementing strategic policy decisions to serve an operational or tactical military goal while also bringing U.S. forces in compliance with international and domestic laws (Pike). There are many factors that influence decisions to engage hostile forces such as location, terrain, the nature of the troops, civilians, and the weather. The rules of engagement also differ during times of peace and war. Wartime ROE grants the U.S. some justification for the use of force. In contrast, peacetime ROE only permits engagement in individual, unit or national self-defense (Pike) While most of the modern world follows these rules, some regular armies (Nazis, Japanese and North

Throughout the history of warfare the rules of engagement (ROE) were designed to control the actions of soldiers and focus them on achieving the larger objectives. In Vietnam, the ROE was utilized to constrain the activities of personnel in these areas. This because of continuing worries about the possibility of the war escalating into a larger conflict. To understand how this occurred requires examining the limited war strategy in conjunction with the six points in the chain of command. These factors will show the effectiveness of this policy and its long term impacts on the outcome of the war. ("Effects of Restrictive Rules," 1995) (Lewy, 1978) (Moss, 2010)

Our rules of conduct in war are necessary to keep a just war. The reasons to go to war can be just but if not acted correctly while in it the war conducted can then be unjust. These rules for both conditions of going to war and conducting must be all met so the war can be considered just. These conditions must always be kept in mind just like today's conflicts it can become hazy in the eyes of people if the war is justifiable.

In the movie “Rules of Engagement” I do not believe that the soldiers were guilty of anything. Even though these American soldiers may have killed some innocent Iraqi people I do not believe that they did it intentionally. The American soldiers were fighting for their lives because they just witnessed their fellow soldiers getting killed and their main goal was to survive and help their fellow soldiers survive. The soldiers acted accordingly to this situation. For example when they gave the people in the white car commands and they rejected them by running in the opposite direction. This made them look very suspect and this gave the American soldiers the right to eliminate the issue that they were presented with.

“War is a conflict, but conflict doesn’t have to a war.” Conflict is often seen as a war or a huge political disagreement. It can be that, but it can be as simple as arguing with a neighbor over property lines. War on the other hand is a declared, ended, and often with governments and militaries. Conflict can be war, but most conflicts are petty arguments over small things whereas wars are massive military attacks on nations, countries, or states. Although they both have at least two sides they are two astronomically different things. Just as mint chocolate chip is ice cream, but all ice cream isn’t mint chocolate chip.

I do not think Rules of Engagement are fair. The enemy can have very different ROE than you. The enemy can have an upper hand on you, and you might not even know it. The enemy is so unpredictable, so keen, that if you make a wrong move, you could be dead. And if you even attempt to attack the enemy without permission from your government, you could start an all-out nuclear war. The people could fight over fairness and start an even bigger war than the one you’re fighting.

War as institution is guided by many rules that specify criteria, code of conduct, regulations, conditions, clauses, etc. These rules, outlined in just war theory, are categorized into the breakdown of the different stages of war, jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. The latter is concerned with the closing stages of war, so that a war is terminated fairly, and the proceedings are executed fairly. In bello rules guide conduct during war, after the initiation of war, and jus ad bellum concerns the rightful initiation and justifications of war. These laws, though quite extensive, rest on interpretations of what war is, and the interpretations of what constitutes war. There are many areas open for interpretation here, from what