Debate Rules of Engagement

A couple information links:
http://judoinfo.com/pdf/USMCcombat.pdf
Protection of civilian persons and populations in time of war
Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive - Afghanistan- msnbc.com


This debate pertains to the Rules of Engagement as they apply to modern warfare, and specfically the War on Terror in the Middle East (Primarily Afghanistan).

Should the Rules of Engagement, as defined by the 1949 Geneva conventions, be altered or adapted for Modern War, which includes Vietcong / Taliban style Guerilla warfare and terrorism?



For my english class I had to write a 2 1/2 page essay per side, but I can't find the .doc files right now so they will come later.



I recommend the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell to everyone. A must read especially for an American. It is the story of Navy Seal Team 10 and Operation Red Wing, the largest loss of lives in Seal History (19 soldiers, a combination of seals and a heli crew)




EDIT:
I get the sense that the majority of the people here don't even understand the base of the topic.
Rules regarding the protection of civilians were drafted up by the Geneva Conventions and apply to all nations.
Some groups like the Taliban do not follow these rules.
This makes conflict that needs a resolution...


Another Edit:
I found the .docs of the two sides of the argument, but they are short essays written by a high school kid (me) in 2 or less hours...
I will put each one in a spoiler

Keep the rules the way they are

Spoiler

Protection Is Crucial​

In 1949, at the Geneva Conventions, representatives from various nations created a set of rules that reformed and detailed various rules that were set by the Hague Conventions in the early 1900s. These rules regarding treatment of citizens within an occupied country are still in effect today. Some of these rules, specifically those regarding the authorization of force, have recently been debated as to if they are outdated and not suited to modern warfare. The Rules of Engagement as determined by the Geneva Conventions are specifically designed to protect civilians at all costs, and no changes should be made to these rules that could result in causing harm to innocent people caught in the crossfire.
The Rules of Engagement only allow deadly force in limited situations, and should not be broadened to include situations that do not need deadly force. In every situation, soldiers cannot specifically fire into areas of unknown population, for "in order to ensure respect and protection for the civilian population and civilian property, [the Parties are obliged] to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants" ("Protection of civilian persons and populations in time of war"). This prevents innocent people from dying for the wrong reasons, or no reason at all. Further yet, it prevents the destruction of buildings or possessions that belong to those who are innocent. Placing a civilian out of harm's way is more important than eliminating an insurgent or other enemy militant. Even if a mission has the chance of proceeding smoother or faster, "[the rules] do not sanction deadly force to accomplish a mission" (Smith). This may halt progress, but it is for the better since civilian lives may be saved. Even if the success of the mission will in time save civilian lives, the fact that it will put some in harm's way is unjustifiable and the mission cannot proceed unless an alternate procedure is used. The rules were made to protect civilians, and protecting civilians is what they will do, because they are the main focus of wars such as the current ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Abiding by these rules does not always halt progress, for in the long run, the trust of the local people can be gained by showing that they are not in harm's way and are becoming safer due to our actions. Regarding the objective of the wars in the Middle East, specifically in Afghanistan, "NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal, [but that it] more important[ly] is to win public support" ("Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive"). Having the support of the people can immensely boost morale, lower enemy recruiting numbers, and can give soldiers the help of locals who know the landscape or other useful intelligence. These effects can lead to a quicker victory, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, can lead to the much desired stability. Acting in a way that causes "civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population" ("Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive"). If the population is against the occupying force, then more native people will enlist with the guerilla insurgent forces to attempt to remove the forces from their homeland, which they feel is threatened. Harming civilians has no positive long term effects, for it just drops support and makes the job of the occupying force that much harder, having to fight against a rallied, growing enemy. The protection of civilians is beneficial to both the people and the occupying force, and has greater benefits than a policy that ignores the safety of innocent civilians would.
The Rules of Engagement defend civilians from harm that would otherwise be unnecessary. These rules are beneficial to all and still to this day do their job of guarding innocent people. By abiding by these rules and not changing them, less harm will come to civilians and many lives will be saved.
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Treaties and Other International Acts. 12 Aug. 1949. ICRC.org. International Committee of the Red Cross, Web. 29 Oct. 2009.
Col. Smith, Dan. "Rules of Engagement in Iraq: Rules to Live...and Die...By." Counterpunch. 8 Dec. 2004. Web. 14 Jan. 2010.
"Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive." MSNBC. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.

Change the rules

Spoiler

Rules That Shouldn't Apply, But Tragically Do​

The Rules of Engagement, which were set in 1949 following World War II to protect civilians, are still in effect today. These rules prohibit the use of various levels of force in various circumstances. However, warfare and tactics have changed drastically since then, and these rules are beginning to become outdated. With the War on Terror in Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, terrorists and guerilla fighters do not follow these rules while the United States do. The Rules of Engagement, as determined by the Geneva Conventions in 1949, are outdated and need to be altered and adapted for modern warfare to fit circumstances like guerilla warfare while keeping civilians protected.
Guerilla warfare is a tactic that has been used for centuries, such as the barbarians attacking the Romans, the "Swamp Fox" attacking the British during the Revolutionary War, the Vietcong in the Vietnam Conflict, and most recently the Taliban attacking the United States. The Romans fought back viciously, the British fought hard against the Swamp Fox, the United States bombed and burned most of the suspected enemy areas in Vietnam, but with the War on Terror, officials are more strict and the media is more persuasive, making the mission of eliminating terrorists nigh on impossible without accidentally harming innocent people and being punished. To make matters worse, the Taliban do not follow the same guidelines, but, "every terrorist knows how to manipulate them in their own favor" (Luttrell 168). American military casualties go unanswered because if the insurgent was not seen firing a weapon, he is automatically not guilty of murdering the soldier, even when he was the only insurgent in the proximity and the bullet that downed a soldier matches the firearm that is five feet from this insurgent. A terrorist can move around freely from weapons cache to weapons cache, but if he is never seen actually holding a weapon, the rules of engagement consider him an innocent civilian. Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, of Altoona, Iowa and his "platoon [have] repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians" ("Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive"). If these militants cannot be suppressed under the Rules of Engagement, US soldiers or actually innocent civilians will continue to be harmed. Even on dangerous missions in areas like the Afghan mountains, which are crawling with militant insurgents, military personnel are not allowed to fire on suspected insurgents unless the insurgent is already using deadly force upon the soldiers. Situations like this can easily get Americans killed.
A change in the Rules of Engagement could indirectly save lives by allowing the military to make decisions involving the security of a mission. Operation Red Wing, the largest loss in live in Navy Seal History, claimed 19 lives because a group of Seals decided that if they killed some goat herders that stumbled upon their position, then they "would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all" (West). They let the herders go, and the herders alerted the Taliban who sent a force of well over 200 armed men to eliminate the 4 seals. A rescue helicopter with 16 men on board was hit by a Taliban Rocket Propelled Grenade. Their mission was to eliminate a warlord. The lives of three goat herders spared by the ROE were traded for nineteen American deaths plus however many American and civilian deaths the warlord is responsible for. Not only could this have saved American lives, but the Afghan civilians in danger of bombings or similar acts of terrorism could have been saved. Similar situations occur all the time, when US soldiers are presented with a situation that, under the Rules of Engagement, does not allow deadly force even when the people in question are undoubtedly insurgents and not innocent at all. The bombing of the USS Cole, and the attempt on the USS The Sullivans, involved two terrorists that loaded a small boat with explosives and almost sank the USS Cole when the explosion blew a large hole in the hull of the ship. Guards on board were not allowed to shoot the suspects, because the suspicious boat did not have any truly visible signs of danger. Seventeen sailors died on the USS Cole, lives that could have been prevented from dying. But those lives were lost simply because the current Rules of Engagement do not allow soldiers to fire upon civilians that have not visibly used deadly force. These rules must be changed to save lives.
If the Rules of Engagement are adaptation to Modern Warfare, more lives will be saved than will be spent. An alteration would surely prevent the deaths of soldiers and civilians alike. These rules must be changed.

Works Cited​

Luttrell, Marcus, and Patrick Robinson. Lone Survivor. New York: Back Bay Books, 2007. Print.​

"Troops: Strict war rules slow Afghan offensive." MSNBC. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.​

West, Diana. "Death By Rules of Engagement." Townhall.com. 17 Aug. 2007. Web. 14 Jan. 2010.​

 

I updated the OP with the doc files of the essays I had to write...