| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| For instructions on how to lose war, consult flow chart |
| 2005-11-30 |
| While American civilians and politicians debate when and whether to withdraw troops from Iraq, the buzz among some military lawyers has been a recent Pentagon rule change that they say potentially limits service members' ability to defend themselves. In June, the Pentagon changed its Standing Rules of Engagement to allow commanders to limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Interpreted for me by two Army judge advocate general officers (JAGs), this essentially means that soldiers and Marines may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury. That belongs only to commanders, who may not be present to make a decision every time a soldier or Marine faces a deadly threat. The impetus behind the rule change likely evolved from concerns that a soldier might misinterpret a danger and kill an innocent instead of a bad actor. But critics say the solution to this ever-present tension is better training, not more restrictive rules. Commanders and JAGs close to the debate say the rule change poses numerous potential problems and contradicts the guiding principle in all of America's rules of engagement, which is that nothing in these rules limits the inherent right of self-defense. If a soldier or Marine can't make a split-second decision to kill or be killed, even at the risk of making an erroneous judgment, he or she may eventually hesitate, fumble the wrong way, and end up dead. Rest at link. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #8 The lawyers screwed up government, health care, and business. They're just branching out into military operations. How long till we send two lawyers with any soldier whenever we have a combat operation. I'm OK with that, but only if the lawyers go first. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-11-30 23:43 |
| #7 may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury. FYI, this is written into the Geneva Conventions as an unqualified right of a soldier in a war situation. Moose may well be right and the change pertains to 'policing' situations. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-11-30 16:24 |
| #6 Very well said, Moose. |
| Posted by: mac 2005-11-30 16:09 |
| #5 This was inevitable, and sorry to say, it is probably a good thing. Hear me out. First of all, the vast majority of Iraq is settled and relatively quiet. Even the violent parts are becoming more and more like an episode of 'Cops', rather than a hot battlefield. This is how we planned it, and how we want it to happen. Unfortunately, our guys, men with guns, are not policemen. At a particular point, this starts to get in the way. For example, when an ordinary robbery goes down, and the cops and the bad guys get into a fight, it takes a hell of a lot of discipline for a soldier to not get involved. But, plain and simple, it is not his job to interfere at that point. He has to back off and let the locals handle it. And the more peaceful Iraq becomes, the more the soldiers are going to have to chill out. A critical moment happens when in some parts of the country, the soldiers will stop going out in public with their guns. Their orders will be simple: "If someone starts shooting, run away and call a cop." Psychologically, it's a bitch. But you really, really want that transition to happen. Because it means that we *have* won. Game, set and match. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-30 11:33 |
| #4 THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TV SHOW!!! THEY MUST BE MORALLY PURE!!! Most of the Jags I've known subscribe to the belief of demanding moral purity for others. Not all, certainly. But enough believe themselves to be priests, writing down the perfect word of God that, if followed (by others) will make a perfect world. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-30 11:19 |
| #3 I am not a grunt but I think I would shoot first and take my chances in court later. At least I would be alive to make the court appearance and I don’t think they could find a hostile jury panel for killing a perceived threat. IMHO this is getting haunting close to the ROE that helped doom the war in Vietnam. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-30 10:51 |
| #2 BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TV SHOW!!! THEY MUST BE MORALLY PURE!!! |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-30 10:34 |
| #1 Friggin idiots. Anybody want to guess how many JAG officers have actually been in harm's way, or fired a shot in anger? Even better, why do you think we lost an opportunity to pop the one-eyed mullah? We fiddle-farted around while some Navy JAG O-6 could make up her mind and lost the target of opportunity. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-11-30 10:08 |