Essay Instructions: I'm needing a Abstract and a Conclusion for the paper below:
Introduction
One of the more contentious issues in modern warfare is the concept of rules of engagement. America's involvement in Afghanistan in particular has brought the issue of rules of engagement to light. In theory, the rules of engagement serve to provide a framework for combat troops, to ensure that they are operating under the international conventions of warfare, even if our enemies are not. The Commander-in-Chief strongly supports the rules of engagement at a philosophical and practical level, aiming to balance military objectives and political image-crafting. Problems have emerged, however, with the application of the primacy of rules of engagement in the field.
The biggest problem is that military leaders have begun to place undue emphasis on the rules of engagement, such that soldiers in the field must always take these rules into consideration. Pausing to consider rules of engagement may be the intent of such rules, but the reality is that soldiers are making decisions very quickly, under extreme duress, and often with little information with which to work. The result of having the cloud of rules of engagement hanging over their head is that the soldiers become tentative ? the risk of action against them from their superiors makes them less effective at their jobs. This in turns puts them at greater risk of harm from enemy combatants.
Careful analysis of the concept pertaining to the rules of engagement will be presented. The paper will cover the basic concept, and then discuss how the rules of engagement are being applied in real world scenarios. The pros and cons of the rules of engagement will be discussed in this paper, with specific reference to the situation in Afghanistan. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the rules of engagement needlessly undermine the effectiveness of American soldiers in the field. One may ask if the rules of engagement are hampering our soldiers on the battlefield. To fully engage the enemy and without retribution from the same politicians that sent them to War.
Review of Literature
Rules of Engagement (ROE) are necessary to a certain degree during wars and skirmishes in order to determine what actions military personnel can take when confronted with immediate and personal dangerous or violent situations. Determining a correct ROE, however, is the key to successfully address the overall mission and purpose for military interventions in the first place. As one recent author states ?these rules are in place for reasons that both protect the military and respect the international conventions of war? (Vallely, 2013, para. 3). What is interesting about this subject is the fact that in the same report, Vallely (2013) goes on to state ?ROE can be conveniently manipulated by the political objectives and military mission limitations essential to the construction and application of ROE? (para. 3). That is what seems to be happening in the current war situation in Afghanistan if what experts are saying is to be believed.
Michael Jenkins is a decorated combat veteran who has received the Department of the Army?s highest award for his service. Jenkins (2013) states that ?the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan created an unwanted psychology in our soldiers (and) the fear of retribution and the fear of being court-martialed pre-destined the forces to lose against the nation?s enemies? (para. 6). This is an interesting statement in that the person who states this is quite experienced in the military realm. Jenkins understands what the ROE relates to, and he understands how they can be manipulated to become more of a hindrance than help to the soldier in the field. In fact in his statement Jenkins (2013) says ?the ROE have become an enemy, soldiers are afraid to take risks? (para. 6). It can be argued that soldiers, under the duress that oftentimes can be associated with combat, need the ability to react in sometimes unstructured manners; or in other words the ability to take risks without fear of reprisal or retribution from superiors. That does not mean that the soldier can wipe out entire villages of women and children, but it does mean that they should have the right to protect themselves from the bad guys.
These soldiers should not have to burdened with guidelines that ?can be entangled with political agendas and philosophies? (Vallely, 2013, para 3). As an example, a reporter recently wrote that the ROE in Afghanistan seem to be making ?Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy? (Zinke, 2014, para. 4). Zinke describes a scenario where the American soldier can be 100 percent sure that the enemy is hiding in an Afghan dwelling but still not be able to engage; that has to be frustrating, as well as dangerous, for the soldier. If Americans are truly in the war to win, to assist the country (in this case Afghanistan) in transitioning to a democracy, then the American soldiers must be able to fight the enemy, especially when they know where the enemy is. In Afghanistan, it is difficult enough to determine exactly who the enemy really is, let alone determine where the enemy is. When the determination of who and where has been sufficiently analyzed, the American soldier should have the right to engage. As Zinke (2014) puts it ?what?s happening is we?re losing our ability to fight overseas? (para 4). Instead of the ROE assisting our soldiers, according to Zinke it is being turned into a ?document that can be used effectively against us? (para. 3).
Another protagonist against the ROE is Dana West who has been around the Afghanistan war for a number of years. West (2009) wrote ?we should fight all wars to destroy the enemies? (para. 4). Then, in 2014, she reiterated ?what they are doing to our military, our treasury, our power and our prestige is an unconscionable national betrayal? (West, 2014, para. 1). These are harsh words from the standpoint that our Commander in Chief is the person who most strongly advocates for the implementation and adherence to the ROE. Obama?s justification is that the Americans must do more than just kill enemy soldiers, they must also be even more than one hundred percent sure that other casualties not take place.
According to an article in ?Newsweek?, this is a laudable and achievable goal. Bobbitt (2010) states ?the war aim in a war against terror is not territory, or access to resources, or conversion to our political way of life...it is the protection of civilians within the rule of law? (p. 42).
Bobbitt?s assertion is an interesting one, but is it one that is realistic? Most likely not, at least according to this author. The problem with that type of war aim is that who goes to war to protect civilians within the rule of law? Seriously? It cannot even be easily imagined that a President, even one as ignorant to the law as the current one, would go before Congress and say...the reason we are going to war is because the civilians are not being afforded the opportunity to participate in the rule of law.
Of course, that reason is much better than attempting to win a war so foreigners will like Americans. West (2014) writes that ?this policy of sacrificing American troops to make the barbarians of Afghanistan ?like us? should come before at the very least a Congressional hearing? (para. 1). This author concurs with that line of thinking.
ROE can be defined as ?the key elements that regulates the use of force, incorporating them in the cornerstone of the Operational Law discipline. Some of the legal factors forming the ROE?S foundation are customary and conventional law principles based on the right of self-defense as well as the laws of war? (Vallely, 2013, para. 2). Nevertheless, every soldier is obligated to fully abide by these rules even if sometimes the rules hinder the soldiers from implementing their job skills fully changing the outcome of the battle. Therefore, it is important for reconsideration of the terms of ROE to allow soldiers to implement their job fully.
Rules of Engagement should be guiding the military forces on the legal and non-legal activities they are required to be involved in or not, as part of strategy of winning a war. The soldiers are denied the opportunity to implement their job skill in the name of protecting them and respect to the international laws of war. People like women, children, and innocent civilians are protected by these rules during war when the targeted area by the soldiers harbors the enemies. However, the ROE has little consideration for soldiers who have in turn fallen in the hands of targeted terror groups leading to many soldiers losing their lives as they carry out these rules.
?Americans are weary of war, and understandably skeptical about promises of easy military contests with positive outcomes? (Jenkins 2013 para.6). Our politicians are promising outcomes to the American people they cannot deliver. They cannot deliver it because they themselves are not doing the fighting. What happens during war engagements is our bureaucrats establish Rules of Engagements (R.O.E.). Rules that hamper the American soldier to fully engage the enemy. Some of these rules are detrimental to the American soldier. American lives are lost because of some of these rules. Politicians are trying to keep the peace and win the heart and minds of the country being occupied. Why bother going to War, why would the United States put men and woman in harm?s way only to be handcuffed on the field of battle.
Many of our soldiers are left with no option except to abide by rules because they fear facing prosecution should they go ahead to violate these ROE. Our soldiers are left to fight in fear, which in many occasion creates hesitation; and as soldiers hesitate they face the consequences as they in-turn fall prey to the enemy, this being the reason why many deaths on the part of the US soldiers is recorded.
Diana West published an article entitled, US Marine: The Rules of Engagement Prevent Me from Doing My Job. Jason Gutierrez (as cited in West, 2013) stated, ?The rules of engagement prevent him from doing his job ? under attack in the midst of an ambush that lasted several hours in which two men were grievously wounded and killed. The people behind this order, this whole heinous policy should be summoned to testify in Congress today?(para. 12).
Rules of Engagement have been associated with winning hearts and mind as a strategy especially when the enemies hide within the civilians to convince the civilians that soldiers are doing what is right by wiping out the enemies and may in turn gain the support of the civilians. It even brought more confusion during the battle where the military has to either follow the military law or the commander. While soldiers are trained and advised by the military lawyer, the Army Manual on the other hand requires the soldiers to obey the commanders? ROE. Due to this sometimes military forces are left to wonder how they can act to some situations during the battle since as they follow the ROE from the commander. Soldiers have to think about the military law so that they protect themselves legally to avoid ending up in court and such sometimes makes soldiers not to act effectively to their mission hence delaying their operations.
Many deaths could have been avoided if not due to the restrictive rules of engagement.
?Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard is one of the soldiers who suffered because of ROE as he was ambushed and killed in southern Afghanistan while patrolling? (West, 2009, para. 2). In another battle when the military were in pursuit of the Taliban after the soldiers were ambushed, the soldiers received order not to engage the Taliban since they had laid down their arms as they ran through some type of shack. As a result one soldier was shot and killed while consultations were still going on.
Rules of Engagement have ignored the safety of the US soldiers. As much as women, children and innocent civilians are protected, soldiers should never face prosecution after exercising their military skills even if it jeopardizes the lives of non-combatives.
