This article describes the military term of the rules of engagement. For information about the movie with the same name see Rules of Engagement (movie). Rules of Engagement is a movie starring Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. ...

Rules of Engagement for Operation Provide Relief, 1992.

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. Rules of Engagement for Operation Provide Relief, 1992. ... Rules of Engagement for Operation Provide Relief, 1992. ...

US military ROE

The US Department of Defense officially defines ROE as: The United States Department of Defense, abbreviated DoD or DOD and sometimes called the Defense Department, is a civilian Cabinet organization of the United States government. ...

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

The ROE deal with four issues [2]: Combat, or fighting, is purposeful conflict between one or more persons, often involving violence and intended to establish dominance over the opposition. ...

• 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 soldier 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').

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 United States military forces is always the right to use force in self-defense. The armed forces of the United States of America consist of the United States Army United States Navy United States Air Force United States Marine Corps United States Coast Guard Note: The United States Coast Guard has both military and law enforcement functions. ...

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. 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 different objective than the military commanders, who are trying 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 too 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 or 'escalatory' error and an example of it may be the accidantal killing of Jean de Menezes on July 22, 2005.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda was a relief mission instituted by the United Nations to aid the implementation of the Arusha Accords, signed August 4, 1993 in order to ease tensions between the Hutu-dominated Rwandese government and the Tutsi rebels (for the most part centered in the... Jump to: navigation, search The skulls of victims show gashes and signs of violence The Rwandan Genocide was the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by a group of Hutu extremists known as Interahamwe during a period of 100 days in 1994. ... Jump to: navigation, search Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January 1978 – 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian electrician living in Tulse Hill in south London, England. ... 22 July is the 203rd day (204th in leap years) of the year in the Gregorian Calendar, with 162 days remaining. ... Jump to: navigation, search 2005 (MMV) is a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Current Issues

(2004) There is an increase in the use of private military contractors in modern conflict. Typically these companies are not bound by the same ROE and well thought out standing orders that a national military force adheres to. Nor are also typically as accountable. This increases the likelihood of 'loose ROE' type errors. Jump to: navigation, search Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer flanked by private military contractors Private military contractors or private military companies (PMCs) are companies that provide logistics, manpower, and other expenditures for a military force; when involved with logistics, companies may be described more generally as defense contractors. ...

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. This well written analysis provides an excellent overview.
3. Private Military Companies, Taljaard, R. Yale Global Online 9 December 2003.Modern Day Mercenaries.