In military or police operations, the rules of engagement (ROE) determine when, where, and how force shall be used. Such rules are both general and specific, and there have been large variations between cultures throughout history. The rules may be made public, as in a martial law or curfew situation, but are typically only fully known to the force that intends to use them. The ROE should comply with the generally accepted martial law.

Contents 1 Examples 1.1 NATO - ROE 1.2 British Military ROE 1.3 U.S. Military ROE 1.4 ROE failures 2 Current Issues 3 See also 4 References

[edit] Examples

[edit] NATO - ROE

The most widespread and most accepted rules of engagement (ROE) exist within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and are generally designed as operational rules for commanders of battalion-level and larger forces and Commanding Officers of warships. In times of rising numbers of terrorist attacks and piracy, both defined as "outside of declared-war situations," the ROEs gain ever greater importance to the various forces opposing them.

[edit] British Military ROE

The British Ministry of Defence officially defines ROE as:

"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which UK forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1]

The ROE deal with four issues:

• When military force may be used,
• Where military force may be used,
• Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and
• How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.

The ROE take two forms: Actions a military commander may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command'). Also, in the event that there is a clear and present danger.

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The ROE are extremely important:

1. They provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each.
2. They assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force.

The first rule of engagement for British Armed Forces is always the right to use force in self-defence.

[edit] U.S. Military ROE

The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows:

• Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
• Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
• Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by battle space commanders and are created to carry out and fall in-line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. An example of such a goal would be the winning of hearts and minds of the indigenous people in Afghanistan. In order for this to be accomplished, battle space commanders must manufacture rules of engagement that will not violate the trust of the local population, but will instead foster a relationship of respect and understanding.

[edit] ROE failures

In any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. (Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Red Wing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10" is a critique of America's rules of engagement for professional soldiers.^[1]) This creates room for two types of error:

• Excessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a political or diplomatic objective, and the military commanders, who are trying to make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan [2] provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of over-restrictive ROE.
• Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage. Such action would most likely negate the trust of a local indigenous population who would then support the escalation of an insurgent force through protection, harboring of weapons, and recruitment.

[edit] Current Issues

The late 1990s and early 2000s has seen an increase in the use of private military contractors particularly from United States and Britain. Contractors such as Blackwater are not bound by the same rules of engagement, standing orders, or levels of accountability as are members of a national military force. This is a military policy problem as the wrongful actions that many civilian security companies have taken part in are taken as the action of the force in country; the actions of civilian security forces hired by the United States are taken to be the actions of the United States directly. The fight against modern piracy has become the most needed field, where generally agreed ROE should be established within the NATO and/or higher level political panels.

[edit] See also

• The Moscow Rules, an example of the use of the ROE term in tradecraft.

[edit] References

1. USDOD. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: NATO Only Terms. United States of America: Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff, Department of Defense. December 17, 2003.
2. Sagan, Scott D., Rules of Engagement, pp 443 - 470 in: George, A., Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management, ISBN 0-8133-1232-9.
3. Private Military Companies, Taljaard, R. Yale Global Online 9 December 2003.Modern Day Mercenaries.