Discourse on the limitations of the military ROE

Military ROE or the rules of engagement have often been an ongoing source of dilemma for the modern soldier. To kill or not to kill, that is the question. Let me bring in a factual instance, in the book Lone Survivor, 4 Elite United States Navy SEALs offered the gift of life to 3 goatherders and paid the highest price for their country. Let me quote an excerpt:

"I tried to ask them if they were Taliban, and they all shook their heads, the older men saying, in English, "No Taliban...no Taliban." I gave the kid one of my power bars, and he scowled at me. Just put it down on a rock next to him, with no thanks or nod of appreciation. The two adults glared at us,making it obvious they disliked us intensely. Of course, they were probably wondering what the hell we were doing wandering about their farm with enough weapons and ammunition to conquer an entire Afghan province.

The question was, What did we do now? They were very obviously goatherds, farmers from the high country. Or as it states in the pages of the Geneva Convention, unarmed civilians."

This underscores the ethical and moral considerations to be undertaken before, during and after a mission. From a strictly military viewpoint, the best solution would be of course to shoot the goatherds and be rid of their bodies. The question is, how can we ascertain their mal-intentions? Furthermore, in liberal societies such as the in the United States, the media is given free reign to report. Imagine the headlines struck against a piece of paper "Soldiers kill innocent farmers in Afghanistan". However, are these farmers truly innocent? In such dire times, do we wait for the enemy to walk up to us and shoot us in the head before we retaliate? These ruthless men are often desperate. They have nothing to lose and stand only to gain from betraying the trust and faith placed in them by the Military.

In Iraq and Afghanistan it has been said that some people would shoot their own mothers for a buck. What separates those from these goatherds? The answer? Nothing.

Liberal Media has been a source of much greviance for the Military. The prospect of being court-martialed and/or being incarcerated in a civilian jail does not sound entirely appealing. Some critics would claim if we kill "innocents" such as those then we would be no different from the Militants and Extremists. However, in life, it comes down to whom you'd rather be dead.

Those men know these rules. Those insurgents play by the book and use them against all of us. They know Soldiers face the nightmarish prospect of being persecuted by their own side for hurting "unarmed civillians."

For example, the following replicates a pre-September 11, 2001 set of standing ROE for Joint Task Force 6, the multi-service command at Fort Bliss, Texas that is the Defense Department's interface with counter-drug U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Personnel WILL make every effort to avoid confrontation or armed conflict with civilians.

Personnel MAY:
Use only the amount of force necessary and proportional to the threat;Use deadly force in self-defense and in defending others from death or serious bodily injury;Detain any person posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, releasing them to civilian LEA [law enforcement agents] as soon as possible;Pursue armed persons only to defend or retrieve personnel;Pursue unarmed forces to retrieve military equipment.

Personnel MAY NOT:
Use deadly force to protect property;Use deadly force if other measures would be reasonably effective;Enter Mexico or Canada;Participate in arrests, searches, seizures, or interrogations;Trespass on private property.

Self-defense is a commonly mentioned term in most stipulations of the rules. Soldiers are not allowed to fire unless fired upon and cannot fire unless there is no room for doubt of the insurgent's intentions. This is plain ridiculous. So if a terrorist waltzes around with a 7.62 Calibre AK-47 rifle but doesn't shoot anyone we're not allowed to kill him?

Moving back to the story, the goatherders did betray the SEALs and eventually after taking down around a hundred of the enemy they succumbed to the sheer volume of fire and weight of numbers. Lt. Michael "Mikey" Murphy took multiple wounds to the chest and head but fought on till 4 of the enemy shot him at point blank. He continued to call for assistance from HQ despite being shot in the chest and back and being mortally wounded. Such was his determination to save the rest of his team.

Even as he breathed his last he spoke calmly into the radio saying "Yes Sir. Thank You". Such is the incredible valour of the SEALs. The deeds of the other 3 are no less heroic with Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Danny P. Dietz taking around 6 bullets before dying. Sonar Technician(Surface)2nd Class Matthew Gene Axelson had a gaping head wound but continued to pour fire into the enemy. Lt. Murphy was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour posthumously while the other three were given Navy Crosses, second only to the medal of honour.

His Medal of Honour Citation reads:

LIEUTENANT MICHAEL P. MURPHY

UNITED STATES NAVY

For service as set forth in the following CITATION:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life and above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare task unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader, Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy's team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service

4 against 200 not very good odds by any chances. One man did survive and he wrote the book. I do not know about the rest of you but personally, if given the choice, I would have shot the goatherders.

SSG (NCC) Zacchaeus