Hacker News Reader

"Rules of engagement" are less noble than they sound. They are not internationally reviewed and approved, they are unilaterally imposed by one party.

An infamous example being the "do not approach within 50 metres of this vehicle" for convoy escorts in Iraq. Under no international law can the use of lethal force be condoned in that circumstance yet it was 'legal' under the RoE.

And I'm not saying that as some lefty pacifist, having been in uniform myself.

View on HN

>They are not internationally reviewed and approved

Devil's advocate: what makes ROE any better if they're approved by China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, for example? Western European-descendent values and cultural norms are a global minority. You might not like the ROE favored by Indonesia in East Timor, or by the Saudis in Yemen, or by Sudan in Darfur.

At least that rule can be followed. In Fallujah, the US prevented military aged from leaving and then decided all males left in the city were combatants.

You missed the next bit where those that remained had white phosphorus fired at them. “We could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com