Soldiers-told-not-to-shoot-Taliban-bomb-layers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Kromeriz, Jul 9, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Soldiers told not to shoot Taliban bomb layers - Telegraph

    I was looking at the MOD website yesterday and reading about RM and how the world was improving blah blah. Could some of the youngsters tell us what it is really like please?

    For instance, is it true what is reported in the Torygraph? Is there any grain of truth what is on the MOD website?
     
  2. So what are you going to be doing for a job after Sunday then? Given it any thought yet?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. You cannot shoot someone laying an IED as he doesn't pose a risk to life at that moment. The enemy know this. Blokes have shot farmers in the past just digging in their fields as farmers do. There are instances when you can shoot an IED layer but I won't go into them on here.
     
  4. It comes down to the RoE and wether life is at immediate risk.
     

  5. Possession of a maroon lid?
     
  6. No,it's all in the ROE



    As this is a sensible part of ARRSE I'll also provide a sensible post, this has bee nthe case for years, we were told when we could and couldn't engage someone who was digging/laying "suspected" IEDs back in 2007, must be a slow news day
     
    • Like Like x 17
  7. I understand for opsec reasons you cannot go further here, but let me point out that the article I read said the Geneva Convention AND the ROE required this rule. Since the Convention says no such thing it must be the ROE and if this rule is as reported it is overbroad at the expense of British troops lives.

    We had similar issues in Vietnam and while not as elegant as today"s ROE, I can recall admonishing troops not to be trigger happy and that certain things needed to be observed regarding the intended target before engaging.

    This reasonably accounts for the farmer. But a sweeping rule (if it is as reported) like this is IMHO bordering on the criminal given the percentage of IED attacks compared to other means of attack. While this is a counterinsurgency that implicates "hearts and minds," it is still a WAR and not a peacekeeping operation.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  8. The world [Western edition] has gone soft in recent years because the law/decision makers have not starved/been put in harms way/have had a pampered protected upbringing, aided and abetted by vested interests, wasters and liberal pinko Guardian reading types.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. So do the spams actually have ROE then, the only people that EVER shot at me in Iraq were spams, twice. Both times we were clearly recognisable as brits, complete with uniform and Union flags etc. This was on a road, behind a spam convoy (Within about 30 metres). Bunch of ****ing ***** is what i would say. The only saving grace was that they were such bad ****ing shots that they missed! Seems the yank ROE are open up on whoever you want whenever you want to, especially brits because their ROE forbid them to shoot back if they can positively identify you as 'friendly' forces.
     
  10. You are right of course and I've never been a big fan of courageous restraint though there does seem a little logic in it. Killing an innocent farmer may be turn the male members of his family towards the taliban. You have then more enemy to fight and the end state (whatever that is in Afghanistan) is then harder to achieve.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. That is of course a valid viewpoint. The other is that killing innocent locals working on their own land is probably counter-productive and increases local support for the very people we are trying to defeat. If the local police in the UK were to start brassing up anyone acting suspiciously just in case, would that get your support? If so, would that support still be there if they slotted any of your family or friends?

    We all know that this is a 'war situation' and there will be 'collateral damage'. The idea is to limit it as far as possible as it is in our own interest.

    I also find it strange that the example of Vietnam and the lower level of proof required before taking out a target. After all, they managed to gain 'so much' support they had to leave quite rapidly, so probably not a great example of how to win 'hearts & minds'.


    Edited to point out that I'm saying the same thing as Fallschirmjager who got there before me.
     
  12. Current istar assets in theatre pretty much negate the need to brass up anything remotely suspicious and it all comes down to situation on the ground and prior intelligence, as has been the way for many moons, I personally think that methods of strategic targeting now are excellant and if the can be maintained at the current rate with similar success the enemy are****ed, very much tightening the noose round anyone considering having a go but I suppose only time will tell. Also it very much depends on the unit and calibre of soldier involved as nothing is black and White over there as I'm sure everyone knows.
     
  13. So you ignored the big stay back or we'll shoot signs then?
     
  14. JJH: . As a casual observer, even I have noticed that there does seem to have been a difference in interpretation between the various component nations of the ISAF force. The clearance of "Pharmacy Road" provides a salient example. I would wholly agree with the US Marine commander that demolition of properties to clear a 200m boulevard was entirely sensible, given the level of threat in that location. It is a matter of deep sadness to me that British forces were not allowed to take the necessary action during their tenure.

    B
     
    • Like Like x 1