The printed and broadcast media, punters, journalists and politicians are focussing on Chinooks and kit as the stumbling block. They couldn't be more wrong. On H9 time and again the really big issue was not so much shortage of Chinooks (although that is a critical issue) but RoE. Ask any soldier and he/she will say its our UK Rules of Engagement that are so restrictive it's like fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. Time and again (bearing in mind these open, unclas means) we were forced to watch as the TB moved away or routed through or assembled - and we weren't allowed to engage untul certain highly prescriptive conditions were met. We were nearly in the dwang upto our nostrils (and this was reported in the Press) merely because we accidentally and tragically shot dead a TB bomb technician in the act. Our crime? He was turning away still holding the 'gubbins' when we fired our warning shots therefore we had breached RoE. Time and again the TB escape because as they are not engaging in a hostile act - we can't take them out, like 27 MEU did in Garmsir last September. Our Rules of Engagement, it seems to me, are laid down by UK MoD and Home Office lawyers who are so scared of the International Court of Human Rights getting involved, that they make our RoE deliberately so restricitve IOT rule out any possible 'litigation' from TB families. So surely its the RoE that is stopping us defeating the enemy - or have I got it all wrong? What do others feel about the RoE issue?