Rules Of Engagement Analysis

Third, COL Steele offered trophy knives as a reward for killing insurgents or exemplary service. Offering an award for exemplar service is a good idea but a reward based on insurgent kills is not. It further dehumanizes Iraqis and places an emphasis on killing over other mission objectives. Fourth, COL Steele did not communicate the Rules of Engagement (ROE) very well with his unit. His speeches emphasized his core principles of “be precise; be lethal; be safe,” but that caused his soldiers to believe that COL Steele wanted them to shoot instead of capture potential insurgents. Fifth, at the company headquarters, soldiers had posted a kill board that tracked the number of Iraqis killed during operations. This kill board represents the degree to which COL Steele’s soldiers were dehumanized the Iraqis and were confused over the ROE. These issues would eventually lead to the war crime being committed during Operation Iron Triangle.

In the beginning of Lone Survivor, four men undertake a mission to take down the leader of the Taliban. They finally reach the mountain above where the village is located, and immediately spots the Taliban leader. Mike Murphy, their lutenaint, says to move up higher into the trees. While resting, they awake to the sound of goat bells, and take the three Taliban sheepherders as prisoners for the moment. They find a walkie talkie, and Mike, and his men, start arguing over the right thing to do, to kill the men, tie them up and let them die on their own, or to release them and move up. They argue as to whether or not to follow their rules of engagement, and not kill unless fired upon, or do just kill them. Finally, they decide to let them go, and follow the rules of engagement. “If we kill these kids, it’s International news. CNN doesn’t care about Rules of Engagement. SEALs kill kids. That’s the story. Forever. Let them go. Shut it down.” (Berg52)

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

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 events that led up to the rape and murder of a teenaged Iraqi girl and murder of her family directly resulted in the committing of the atrocity itself. Leading soldiers is not an easy, quick, or part-time job. From reading this book, I have gleaned that the issue wasn’t one of sub-par soldiers, but of poor leadership straight up the chain of command and I interpret the source of the problem to be the Battalion Commander, Lt. Col. Kunk. Admittedly there were leadership failures from Gen. Petraeous all the way down to the team leader level, however, I believe most of the problems originated at the platoon level due to a general lack of support from the battalion level. This review will hit on main events in during the deployment but

As a whole, the Army deals with ethical breeches at the subordinate level (I.E. E1 – E6 level) fairly well. Take Abu Ghraib, all the enlisted soldiers that were found guilty were either sentenced to prison, discharged or both. The “Thrill-Kill” soldiers from Ft. Lewis are being prosecuted with one being sentenced to 24 years in prison. These are extreme cases of ethical breeches, and doesn’t address the role the most senior leaders played in these situations and the punishments they received.

     On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even

This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word “sacrifice” means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were “sacrificed” as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S.

People choose what political party they want to be in based on their viewpoint and ideals. For the most part, their views align. As a result, most republicans agree with other republicans and most democrats agree with other democrats. Occasionally though, the members of these parties have opposing views, and they clash. This is often referred to as ‘political friendly fire’.

Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.

Military personnel operating in combat missions must maintain mental and situational awareness of their area of operations. This includes a complete understanding of their physical and doctrinal training. Besides accomplishing their mission, soldiers must also consider the rules of engagement and the personal and professional ethics, values and morals that factor into their decisions in high stress environments (Allen, 2013). Well planned missions will never be executed perfectly. Due to human nature, soldiers may be faced with an ethical dilemma.

Soldiers are trained to always follow orders, and to never question orders. But that belief is somewhat illogical. Soldier's are to obey any lawful order given. But the training involved, the often chaotic nature of battle, and the need to follow authority to maintain survival can lead to a very blurred vision of what is right or wrong. One's animalistic instincts may take over. Sometimes there are such situations when you've stepped over the line. Such as the horrendous act that took place on March 16, 1968 in the village of Son My.

There are unwritten rules of war, and the United States may have broken one by attacking innocent civilians, but they were protecting their own. The United States has always been pro-active when it comes to the safety of its citizens and this was just

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state

As an organizational- level leadership, he will confront many thorny problems and missions that challenge their moral criteria and military profession. In particular, when they receive the order from the upper- level, how he employ his expertise to exercise his moral leadership and undertake the tasks. Actually, both of the profession and ethic are interdependent, and inseparable. Thus, a professional commissioned officer should understand how to fit ethic into his expertise. Moreover, people would face the dilemmatic situation between the obedience of rules and the consideration of the consequence. When it comes to the moral or ethical, should I follow the deontology or consequentialism? Which one is the most critical priority to the stewardship