Originally Posted by
Rheinstorff
Perhaps my meaning didn't come across to you; allow me to try again. Of course ROE are important. Indeed the 'licence to operate' they provide means that we behave in a way that both satisfies national law and international law, but also in a way that the population on whose behalf we act is comfortable with it. Essential in a democracy, I'd suggest. Furthermore, properly interpreted, ROE provide protection to individuals applying force, and those directing it, from prosecution. To some extent, it might help too with the risk of psychological harm that can arise from killing and injuring others by providing the psychological defence of 'I was acting lawfully'.
As to your question on time in Service: more than 30 years. My first operational deployment in a combat role was in 1988, three days after joining my first front-line unit. Since then, I've been operationally deployed in combat roles, including to Afghanistan, more times than I or my family care to remember. The employment of force, by me and the people under my command, and the associated ROE were the dominant feature of each those.
My point is merely that the term 'rules' is often taken to imply crystal clarity about what you can and cannot do, but the truth is that interpretation is required and must be done with an understanding of the law and a good grasp of context. I've always found Op Law lawyers very useful when planning military operations, and when conducting pre-training and in-theatre refresher training. The understanding they provide is almost invariably welcomed by all who have contact with them, usually because they help guide judgements and interpretation of ROE. The key point is in is guiding judgement and interpretation, rather than rigid application of 'rules'.
Aha, crystal clear, and see where you are coming from.
Thank you.
The key point is in is guiding judgement and interpretation, rather than rigid application of 'rules'.
Amen.
*hand salute*