# One Way to Beat the ROE



## racing_kitty (Aug 28, 2012)

According to this article in the Independent, apparently the Brits have taken to going on patrol with the express purpose of getting shot at so they can actually shoot back.  

With all of my deployments having been to various parts of Iraq, and with a different ROE, I find this to be absolutely sad.  I'm unsure if letting this out in the media was such a good idea, though.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 28, 2012)

Our ROE's were very similar and we knew that we'd have to take a few hits or close calls before returning fire; complete BS. Being given orders to provide "warning" shots at a potential moving IED before being permitted to stop them, was a bit hair raising at times. lol I always told my guys to use the opportunity to "walk" the gun on target.


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2012)

I had a JTAC relate a story to me in 2005: He was with a patrol, he never elaborated on the size, and even back then they couldn't shoot unless they were fired upon. They watched some bad guys and their weapons-laden pack animals walk down a trail when the PL turned to one of his privates and told him that he just had a negligent discharge. Of course the private balked and then an NCO had to reinforce that. So, the private cranked off a round into the air, the bad guys returned fire, the PL could NOW justify a TIC and request CAS. "Cleared hot," 240's, some bad guys killed, etc. and nothing happened to the private.

I'm sure the ROE changes more than our underwear, but this isn't a new problem. Maybe for the Brits it is, but restrictive ROE have existed in various forms over here for a long time now.


----------



## pardus (Aug 29, 2012)

In Vietnam, Kiwi's couldn't call in Arty unless they took casualties. Reason was different though, It was costing too much..


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 29, 2012)

Naturally


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2012)

pardus said:


> In Vietnam, Kiwi's couldn't call in Arty unless they took casualties. Reason was different though, It was costing too much..


 
War is kind of like fine cars and jewelry: If you have to ask how much it will cost, you probably can't afford it.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Aug 29, 2012)

ROE's in the begining of Iraq.... a tad bit.... easier. ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 29, 2012)

Yeah the ROE change in Iraq 03-05 to my last deployment in 2008 was night and day. The old days, if they wore Red/Green/Yellow arm bands, had a weapon during a demonstration, or acted in anyway as a threat, they got dropped. If we were doing a sweep through an A/O that was considered hostile, it was shoot first ask later... In 2008, we got in trouble for pointing our weapons at people. They wanted us to roll out with our weapons in Amber, and required a SSG or above to give the ok for warning shots, etc. Shit got real fucking gay...


I would not wish the stupid ROE's being used today on anyone, I mean who would have ever thought the US Military would have stricter ROE's than the LEO's patrolling back home...


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 30, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> War is kind of like fine cars and jewelry: If you have to ask how much it will cost, you probably can't afford it.


 

And C17s


----------



## fox1371 (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah I've experienced similar "operations."  We just called it "movement to contact."  Damn ROE's haha.  ROE's have never benefited the safety of the individual that has to follow them.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> ROE's have never benefited the safety of the individual that has to follow them.


 
True, although I wouldn't mind betting that the ROEs of early Iraq caused harm to the guys fighting in the later years there.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Aug 30, 2012)

pardus said:


> True, although I wouldn't mind betting that the ROEs of early Iraq caused harm to the guys fighting in the later years there.


 
In 03 we were still fighting RG etc.  Guys were surrendering and then lighting us up.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 30, 2012)

pardus said:


> True, although I wouldn't mind betting that the ROEs of early Iraq caused harm to the guys fighting in the later years there.


I don't think the ROE or how it was used in the early years had anything to do with the problems that took place in later years. Personally I think a lot of the bullshit "don't shoot until you're shot at" ROE's havegotten way too many Americans killed in both OIF & OEF. The big problem is our government leaders trying to use warfare tool (the military) as a policing tool.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2012)

SgtUSMC8541 said:


> In 03 we were still fighting RG etc. Guys were surrendering and then lighting us up.


 
I meant after all the fighting against the "Army", when the insurgency started. Just from what I heard anecdotally.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 30, 2012)

pardus said:


> I meant after all the fighting against the "Army", when the insurgency started. Just from what I heard anecdotally.


 You mean POG transpo units firing blindly in a 360 after being hit with an IED? Yeah, that was shitty training, poor discipline and a failure to realize that such units were extremly vulnerable and not trained for the task at hand in combat conditions. That had jack shit to do with ROE's.
IMHO.
Reed


----------



## AWP (Aug 30, 2012)

4th ID's conduct didn't help anything.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 31, 2012)

"Perceived threat" in '02


----------

