“At our 25th Annual National Security Law Conference we were honored to have LTG Charles “Chuck” Pede, the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General, as our speaker at the conference dinner. We are pleased to bring you his remarks as he makes many vitally important points. For example, he observes that after 19 years of counterinsurgency (COIN)/counter-terrorism (CT) operations, commanders (and, really, their lawyers as well) are imprinted with habits formed by fighting under highly-constrained rules of engagement (ROE).”
I attended the 25th Annual National Security Law Conference back in 2020. Frankly, I about “fell off my chair” as I listen to the General’s comments because he was stating what was being obviously observed in both the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
He started his remarks with the rhetorical question of “What keeps me up at night?” His answer: “…in short – it is whether we’ll have enough legal maneuver space on Battlefield Next…I call this problem 19 years of internal wiring, or habit…Our Army today is spending its time training out the habits formed from fighting in highly constrained rule sets. We know these rule sets as rules of engagement, or ROE. ROE are typically more restrictive than the law of armed conflict.”
How could the US military senior leadership let this happen? Restrictive ROEs will get our warriors not only into legal trouble but also can get them killed. Again! ” Every General Officer once selected and before he pins on his first star should be required to read “Fighting Today’s Wars – How America’s Leaders Have Failed Our Warriors” – by David G. Bolgiano and James M. Patterson”. In addition, if you really want to get your head squared away on the LOAC read; The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict by Yoram Dinstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoram_Dinstein This book is a “door stop” but worth the read. Start with his section on “The Principle of Proportionality” p.172.
The application of the LOAC is subjective. The LOAC have to be subjective in order to be applied to an ever-changing combat environment. The combat ROEs are the responsibility of the Commander and not his lawyers. The Commander’s judgement of the ROE application must be made with the situational eyes of the individual warrior who puts his front sight post on a threat. Always start with the Commander’s judgement and not the NCIS or CID criminal investigation.
Good post. Proportionality is commonly misunderstood and that is a lethal flaw...especially to a force that is trying to preserve some sense of moral compass in the face of interactive violence.
For Israel to have any sort of lasting peace, they need to defeat their enemies in a way they won't forget. The way they do it is for Israel to decide. Joe Biden just wants to kick the can down the road and keep the Muslim vote.
None of the local terrorists including the Houthis will change unless they are hurt enough to realize they won't beat the IDF. Egypt and Jordan figured it out after losing several wars. If the US isn't going to do more than a wrist slap, we need to keep out of Israel's way and give them support. Israel did more in 2 attacks on the Houthis that the US did with a billion in missiles and a carrier strike group. I'm not faulting the military but the DEI, woke, yes men in the command structure.
I agree with ending the enemy's ability to fight wars. However, subject to circumstances, the enemy's desire to wage war warrants attention. The bombing of Germany failed to break the German people's will to continue their role in WW2.
I disagree with linear thinking. But if strategic ends aren't met, the risk of battlefield causalities and resources are squandered on extending wars' duration. So, one can rightly disregard proportionality and still run into trouble.
That short take prevents me from leaving a rambling comment—my kudos to the article's author for the excellent commentary.
Constrained Rules of Engagement
“At our 25th Annual National Security Law Conference we were honored to have LTG Charles “Chuck” Pede, the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General, as our speaker at the conference dinner. We are pleased to bring you his remarks as he makes many vitally important points. For example, he observes that after 19 years of counterinsurgency (COIN)/counter-terrorism (CT) operations, commanders (and, really, their lawyers as well) are imprinted with habits formed by fighting under highly-constrained rules of engagement (ROE).”
Highly recommend that you read General Dunlap’s (Duke University Law School Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security) introduction and General Pede’s speaking remarks. https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/03/07/ltg-pede-on-the-coin-ct-hangover-roe-war-sustaining-targets-and-much-more/
I attended the 25th Annual National Security Law Conference back in 2020. Frankly, I about “fell off my chair” as I listen to the General’s comments because he was stating what was being obviously observed in both the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
He started his remarks with the rhetorical question of “What keeps me up at night?” His answer: “…in short – it is whether we’ll have enough legal maneuver space on Battlefield Next…I call this problem 19 years of internal wiring, or habit…Our Army today is spending its time training out the habits formed from fighting in highly constrained rule sets. We know these rule sets as rules of engagement, or ROE. ROE are typically more restrictive than the law of armed conflict.”
How could the US military senior leadership let this happen? Restrictive ROEs will get our warriors not only into legal trouble but also can get them killed. Again! ” Every General Officer once selected and before he pins on his first star should be required to read “Fighting Today’s Wars – How America’s Leaders Have Failed Our Warriors” – by David G. Bolgiano and James M. Patterson”. In addition, if you really want to get your head squared away on the LOAC read; The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict by Yoram Dinstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoram_Dinstein This book is a “door stop” but worth the read. Start with his section on “The Principle of Proportionality” p.172.
The application of the LOAC is subjective. The LOAC have to be subjective in order to be applied to an ever-changing combat environment. The combat ROEs are the responsibility of the Commander and not his lawyers. The Commander’s judgement of the ROE application must be made with the situational eyes of the individual warrior who puts his front sight post on a threat. Always start with the Commander’s judgement and not the NCIS or CID criminal investigation.
FINALLY. A view of this conflict that makes sense.
Good post. Proportionality is commonly misunderstood and that is a lethal flaw...especially to a force that is trying to preserve some sense of moral compass in the face of interactive violence.
For Israel to have any sort of lasting peace, they need to defeat their enemies in a way they won't forget. The way they do it is for Israel to decide. Joe Biden just wants to kick the can down the road and keep the Muslim vote.
None of the local terrorists including the Houthis will change unless they are hurt enough to realize they won't beat the IDF. Egypt and Jordan figured it out after losing several wars. If the US isn't going to do more than a wrist slap, we need to keep out of Israel's way and give them support. Israel did more in 2 attacks on the Houthis that the US did with a billion in missiles and a carrier strike group. I'm not faulting the military but the DEI, woke, yes men in the command structure.
I agree with ending the enemy's ability to fight wars. However, subject to circumstances, the enemy's desire to wage war warrants attention. The bombing of Germany failed to break the German people's will to continue their role in WW2.
I disagree with linear thinking. But if strategic ends aren't met, the risk of battlefield causalities and resources are squandered on extending wars' duration. So, one can rightly disregard proportionality and still run into trouble.
That short take prevents me from leaving a rambling comment—my kudos to the article's author for the excellent commentary.