rules of engagement
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Related Topics:
- war
- armed force
rules of engagement (ROE), military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used, and they have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare.
Rules of engagement must be consistent while also accounting for a variety of potential scenarios and the political and military aspects of a given situation. They might describe appropriate action regarding unarmed mobs, the property of local civilians, the use of force in self-defense, the returning of hostile fire, the taking of prisoners, the level of hostility (that is, whether the country is at war), as well as a number of other issues. In the United States, two commonly recognized rules of engagement are standing ROE (SROE), which refer to situations in which the U.S. is not actually at war and thus seeks to constrain military action, and wartime ROE (WROE), which do not limit military responses to offensive actions.
Historically, the notion that war should be regulated has been backed by a long list of international treaties and agreements, the most significant being the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. However, rules of engagement are a modern concept necessitated by the possibility of nuclear warfare, advances in telecommunications, and the increased use of military forces in peacekeeping roles.
During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union realized that the potential advantages of attacking were not worth the consequences of retaliation. The possibility that a minor incident could result in nuclear warfare inspired a need to establish procedures defining allowable actions. At the same time, technological advances enabled greater monitoring of the battlefield, tightening the chain of command and creating a more prominent role for the media. Indeed, it was media exposure during the Vietnam War that highlighted the problems of requiring soldiers to fulfill ambiguous objectives. The standard operating procedures imposed on U.S. troops during the Vietnam War resulted in accusations that domestic concerns were inhibiting the military’s freedom of operation.
Since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, a caveat has been added to American rules of engagement to state that all personnel have an inherent right of self-defense. Peacetime rules of engagement (PROE) were also developed that differentiated hostile acts versus hostile intent and also emphasized that a response must be appropriate to the level of threat. Prior to the development of PROE, rules of engagement had only served to inform wartime actions; such directives were then distinguished as WROE. In 1994 PROE were replaced by Joint Chiefs of Staff standing ROE (JCS SROE), which mandate that the use of force must also be consistent with international law.