A terrible incident happened in 2004 in the city of Fallujah, Iraq. Four Blackwater contractors were killed, dragged through the streets on fire, and hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates River (Flintoff, 2007). Some weeks later the U.S. military attempted to capture Fallujah, a stronghold for insurgents, but the U.S. failed in that effort.
The U.S. authority in Iraq (Paul Bremer) issued an order in June 2004 that basically gave Blackwater immunity from Iraq law, Flintoff writes. When you are above the law, there are no rules of engagement. And several incidents subsequent to June, 2004, have brought negative attention to Blackwater. Blackwater guards shot and killed a man in June 2005 and failed to report the incident, Flintoff writes in NPR. A Blackwater guard is accused of killing a security guard working for the Vice President of Iraq (December 2006). And the most notorious incident occurred in September 2007 when Blackwater guards providing security for a State Department convoy opened fire on citizens in Baghdad, killing 17 civilians and wounding 24 others.
Blackwater claimed they fired in self-defense, but an Iraqi citizen who was hit and injured, Hasan Jaber Salman, said (CNN.com) "No one fired at them, they were not attacked by gunman…I swear to God no one did anything to them at all" (CNN.com). The FBI report (Johnson, et al., 2007) on November 13, 2007, found that "…at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq."
In December, 2008, five Blackwater security guards were charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 others (Vicini, 2008). But on December 31, 2009, a federal judge "threw out the indictment of five former Blackwater security guards" because of "the government's mishandling of the case" (Savage, 2010). The judge (Ricardo M. Urbina) called the government's actions in handling the case "a reckless violation of the defendant's constitutional rights" (Savage, 2010).
Conclusion
Deciding what is a proper rule of engagement should not be the job of a member of the armed forces in a hostile environment. That decision should...
Rules of Engagement for War In summary, there are a number of highly eminent reasons why ROE is creating an adverse effect on American military personnel -- particularly in overseas missions in Afghanistan. They are presenting a fundamental conflict of interest -- soldiers have to consider both their mission objectives as well as the legal ramifications of not adhering to ROE, which creates situations of hesitancy, delay, and American casualties as
Rules of Engagement Importance of Rule of Engagement Rules of Engagement can be described as key elements that regulates the use of force, incorporating them a cornerstone of the Operational Law discipline. Some of the legal factors forming the ROE'S foundation are customary and conventional law principles based on the right of self-defense as well as the laws of war. Nevertheless, generally they do not stand alone; they also depend on non-legal
Rules of Engagement During the Vietnam conflict, the Rules of Engagement provided distinct limitations on what military forces could and could not do. It is worth considering how the Rules of Engagement for Vietnam -- and the rationale behind them -- affected the progress of the military action there, and reflected the ideology behind it. An examination of six different points on the military's chain of command -- from the level
ROE Rules of Engagement (ROE) are necessary to a certain degree during wars and skirmishes in order to determine what actions military personnel can take when confronted with immediate and personal dangerous or violent situations. Correct ROE is the key to successfully address the overall mission and purpose for military interventions in the first place. ROE help Protect and Respect: "these rules are in place for reasons that both protect the military and
Conventional Wars The rules of Engagement (ROE) used during war remains were established as recognition to the general or international law in the conduct of war, specifically the protection of civilian (International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2007). Rules of Engagement are composed of procedures, power of decision and limitations which the military forces may employ to achieve goals and objectives during the conduct of war. It is issued by authorities in
Vietnam -- Rules of Engagement There are many reasons given for the fact that the United States lost the war in Vietnam, and that America was basically pushed out of the country by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army even though the U.S. had far more firepower. Among the more credible reasons America lost the war was the failure on the part of the political leaders back in Washington
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now