^^
exactly. there is no set mission over here and eveyones outlook is a little different. that makes it hard to follow one set ROE and one set mindset.

 

It doesn't necessarily change the ROE, though. ROEs are typically straight-forward, especially for those grunts that more likely to engage in combat. The strictest of restrictions most alwyas apply. It's basically like fighting with civilian rules until actually fired upon. It’s basically the same ROE during peacekeeping missions which boggles my mind. For years people have questioned the role of combat-trained Soldiers for peacekeeping missions. So why doesn’t the ROE change accordingly?

You are right about our purpose over there and that's what I tried to say in my last post. There should only be one answer as to why we're there when asking every the Admin, every Soldier on the ground, and every pundit back home.

 

You're out in the middle of nowhere, nobody knows you're there, and you're wondering if you'll have to face a jury when you get back for taking out some farmers. If you believe that they're going to run off an tell the Taliban, then obviously you know who's side they're on to begin with right?

A: Who's gonna know?
B: Why not bind and gag them if you're too much of a humanitarian to kill 'em.
C: Why not, after having bound and gagged them, evacuate the area. I can't believe that wasn't an option. Where the hell were they gonna go to after they assassinated the suspected Taliban leader? There's always a way out, otherwise it's just a suicide mission.

There is something very fishy about this story. I wasn't there, so I can't discredit it, but at the same time common sense tells me not to believe it.

I think the old saying, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, applies here.