Rules of engagement Afghanistan

#1
From today's Independent 2/2/09

"On Thursday, just after midday, Afghan and British troops entered their next target, Lakari, to find the town near-deserted. As they turned into the market place, travelling along potholed roads, they were met by 107mm rockets. Major Andy Watkins, mentoring the Afghan forces, had the Taliban commander in the sight of his SA80 rifle. "I could see him quite distinctly; he was in a black dishdash and wearing a dark turban. He was gesticulating and men were following his orders. I looked hard, but could not see any weapons," he explained. "Under the rules of engagement on this op I wasn't in a position to fire."

Surely if he was exercising a command function?

How far does this line of reasoning extend? Can they skirmish forward unopposed if they put the weapons in fertiliser bags?
 
#2
RoE will not be discussed here.

Rather obvious, really.
 
#3
Bravo_Bravo said:
RoE will not be discussed here.

Rather obvious, really.
Morning BB, how are you?
 
#4
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
RoE will not be discussed here.

Rather obvious, really.
Morning BB, how are you?
He has a good point!!!
 
#5
A good morning to you too RWaC.

FIne here, snowbound so not at work. Hurrah for t'internet.
 
#6
Closet_Jibber said:
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
RoE will not be discussed here.

Rather obvious, really.
Morning BB, how are you?
He has a good point!!!
Was a genuine greeting nothing else, and yes his point was very valid and well made.
 
#7
I know on Telic 9 we got the nod from the army legal people to take out any one calling IDF in. Usualy identifed by the fact they are on a high building with binos whilst on a mob phone during an attack.

Dave
 
#8
Random bloke in black skirt dancing in the middle of the street (ipod hidden under turban) during a fire fight does not equate to a taliban commander, he has no weapon and since the only country that has a shoot to kill policy on dancing in the street or sitting on an underground train at the moment is the UK, Maj Watkins was right not to shoot in this instance.
 
#9
Filbert Fox said:
Random bloke in black skirt dancing in the middle of the street (ipod hidden under turban) during a fire fight does not equate to a taliban commander, he has no weapon and since the only country that has a shoot to kill policy on dancing in the street or sitting on an underground train at the moment is the UK, Maj Watkins was right not to shoot in this instance.
I don’t agree, if the bloke on the ground genuinely believes that the individual is a threat to his life or the life of those around them then they have just earned them selves a bullet. If the ROE in Afghan are not robust enough to facilitate this then our senior commanders should be ashamed of them selves.

Dave
 
#10
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
 
#11
Devilishdave said:
Filbert Fox said:
Random bloke in black skirt dancing in the middle of the street (ipod hidden under turban) during a fire fight does not equate to a taliban commander, he has no weapon and since the only country that has a shoot to kill policy on dancing in the street or sitting on an underground train at the moment is the UK, Maj Watkins was right not to shoot in this instance.
I don’t agree, if the bloke on the ground genuinely believes that the individual is a threat to his life or the life of those around them then they have just earned them selves a bullet. If the ROE in Afghan are not robust enough to facilitate this then our senior commanders should be ashamed of them selves.

Dave
An "Immediate" Threat to life "Then and There"?

I think not!
 
#12
Filbert Fox said:
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
I would shoot any one who I thought was a threat to my self or my blokes and sleep soundly. As I said it is down to the guy on the ground to gauge the situation and not over react. If he is clearly a member or the leader of your enemy then as I said as far as I am concerned he is a legit target. I would rather be in prison for being robust enough to make the right decision than at the funeral of one of my lads for making the wrong one.

Dave
 
#13
Devilishdave said:
Filbert Fox said:
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
I would shoot any one who I thought was a threat to my self or my blokes and sleep soundly. As I said it is down to the guy on the ground to gauge the situation and not over react. If he is clearly a member or the leader of your enemy then as I said as far as I am concerned he is a legit target. I would rather be in prison for being robust enough to make the right decision than at the funeral of one of my lads for making the wrong one.

Dave
I would rather be out of prison and able to shoot plenty more who pose a genuine threat with weapons in their hands rather than banged up for being a criminal because I shot Achmed whilst he was doing a Riverdance.

I do hope you're not in anyway a Commander as your ability to think outside the box and appreciate the bigger picture seems limitted at best!
 
#14
Filbert Fox said:
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
Of course its only ashame he was awake . :D
If we are in a war fighting phase lawyers should be the lest of our worries .I would hope your average Major would be able to tell if some one
was a combatant or not .
We might as well make our roe be "Do what you will" as lawyers jump on anything anyway .There has been a very cynical belief that firing your weapon would lead to trouble I thought that sort of rubbish had gone away
due to the nature of the afganistian conflict.
 
#15
woody said:
Filbert Fox said:
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
Of course its only ashame he was awake . :D
If we are in a war fighting phase lawyers should be the lest of our worries .I would hope your average Major would be able to tell if some one
was a combatant or not .
We might as well make our roe be "Do what you will" as lawyers jump on anything anyway .There has been a very cynical belief that firing your weapon would lead to trouble I thought that sort of rubbish had gone away
due to the nature of the afganistian conflict.
I've never experienced this in the two current conflicts.

Thats because the lads used their common sense and didn't decide to push the boat out by thinking they could shoot someone who was unarmed and not posing an Immediate threat to life.

The Major made the correct choice and the Positive propaganda is good for the message back home and away. We are there for the right reasons and not all baby killing rapists.
 
#16
In this crazy world of getting your own back and making a quick quid, all it would take is one of his soldiers to sell out to the paps after the tour about his boss shooting an unarmed civilian, big headlines and end of career and possibly a jail sentence.

He followed the ROE, good on him.
 
#17
Closet_Jibber said:
Devilishdave said:
Filbert Fox said:
You would shoot an unarmed bloke waving his arms in the street? Hope you have a good lawyer.
I would shoot any one who I thought was a threat to my self or my blokes and sleep soundly. As I said it is down to the guy on the ground to gauge the situation and not over react. If he is clearly a member or the leader of your enemy then as I said as far as I am concerned he is a legit target. I would rather be in prison for being robust enough to make the right decision than at the funeral of one of my lads for making the wrong one.

Dave
I would rather be out of prison and able to shoot plenty more who pose a genuine threat with weapons in their hands rather than banged up for being a criminal because I shot Achmed whilst he was doing a Riverdance.

I do hope you're not in anyway a Commander as your ability to think outside the box and appreciate the bigger picture seems limitted at best!
You are choosing to take me out of context, I at no point said it was acceptable to shoot an innocent (you cant judge that from behind a computer screen but only as the man on the ground) but some one who is clearly a member or leader of your enemy.
 
#18
Assasinations 'R' Us!
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#19
So someone wearing the clothes common to the area waving his hands about is clearly an enemy?

The original article states that he did not have a weapon, and doesn't suggest that he had a radio, binos or any other items typically associated with controlling fires.

So your justification was just that you thought he looked like a Taliban would look?
 
#20
Filbert Fox said:
Assasinations 'R' Us!
That would be CO19 would it not? They always use honest belief as their defence.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top