PJ Media

Yes, you are partly right: the ROE is a set of rules a country/organization is allowed to make up for itself that its forces should comply with and which complies with customary international law and treaties. The key part is that the rules have to follow certain restrictions, and are not unrestricted and arbitary as you imply. If this ROE contradicts international law, then troops are duty bound not to follow those parts which are outside this law, and those responsible for issuing that ROE would be liable to prosecution for war crimes. This ROE is generally considered secret since disclosure would allow once side to develop tactics that exploit the other side’s ROE. Since wikileaks has apparently also published the ROE in force for this time and place, you can probably read it and you’ll be able to point out where it contravenes international law so we can begin prosecutions. You are implying that the USA regularly breaks its own ROE: do you have proof that this is sanctioned by the government and military? I seem to remember that the USA military has investigated and does investigate claims of military personnel breaking this ROE – why do you think it does not? Why do you think there is an after action report on this particular incident, apparently with photographs of the dead with weapons strewn around if not to provide proof of what went on, should allegations of illegal acts come about?

I’m still waiting for any ROE for the AIF that you might have.

War is not about ‘fairness’ in battle. I’ll repeat myself: War is not a joust. The ‘little guy’ is not given a free pass because of an imbalance in forces or technology. You may think it is immoral. You may think this is unlawful. You may think this is wrong. Just because you don’t like it does not make it illegal or wrong.

“enemy needing to use guerrilla warfare”: So they are allowed to ignore international law because they are disadvantaged? Do they get a free pass to kill innocent civilians, or cause innocent civilians to be killed because they choose to ignore international law? If you have a disagreement with your local police, you don’t have a right to poison their water supply since they have more guns than you do. Or are you OK with the notion that anything is justifiable if you are disadvantaged enough?

The ‘High Ground’ that the USA has is its ROE and operates under the laws of warfare, which is more moral than the ROE which the AIF appears to have. The proof of their adherence to this ROE is on the wikileaks video. Being indistinguishable from armed AIF and appearing to act aggressively as a lawful target makes you stupid and dead; it does not make require that the US forces act like a paper target just because they have an overwhelming force they are able to bear.