Running head: RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 1

Rules of Engagement Involving American Soldiers

Riley Clifford

Legal Studies Academy Research and Writing

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 2

Abstract

This paper about the Rules of Engagement involving American soldiers discusses how the

evolution of the war zone has created a counterinsurgency warfare model in which insurgents

can gain tactical advantage by hiding within the surrounding civilian population. The Rules of

Engagement have trouble adapting and evolving with the change of the war zone and often limit

the soldiers ability to do a job in combat. The paper also explains the important role that the

media and politicians play in influencing the soldiers decisions from back in the United States.

Several real life examples are added into the paper to show how ethics and humanitarian law

constantly arise while in combat. The paper explains how the Rules of Engagement often create a

blurred line on the field of battle as to what is morally right and wrong.

Keywords: Rules of Engagement, American soldiers, ethics, war zone, blurred line
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 3

Rules of Engagement Involving American Soldiers

War is a strong act of force that creates a living hell for the members involved without

discriminating any sex, race, or gender. The crime of war develops from two aspects: how

people are getting killed and who is getting killed. Depending on the manner of combat, drawing

a the line on the limit of who is getting killed and how people are getting killed becomes a blurry

decision. Essentially, if a war took place free of outside factors, no restraints would be held on

the strategies used to kill or the people that would be affected. This is called absolute war. In

reality, as a war intensifies, the closer the situation is to being absolute war. With an increase of

violence, the effect of the extrinsic moral codes decreases, and the normality of killing weakens

what could be classified as a crime of war (Walzer, 1977, p. 21-22). It is a combination of

international law and humanitarian law that outline the general guidelines of combat. As warfare

developed throughout time, the essence of humanitarian laws became present. Humanitarian law

on warfare is summarized in a few fundamental principles, such as, humane treatment of

prisoners of war, a limit on the means of warfare, distinguishing combatants from civilians, and

respecting those not involved in the hostilities (civilians). The Rules of Engagement are a set of

adapted rules given to American soldiers while in combat, based of humanitarian law, to avoid

violating humanitarian law while taking part in combat (Gassar, 1998). Now, counterinsurgency

being the new tactic of warfare, it is difficult for the American soldier to potentially distinguish

civilians from combatants. This, among other factors, has influence on standing Rules of

Engagement (Pennekamp, 2012). Current United States Rules of Engagement increase the

vulnerability of the American soldier in foreign war zones by failing to recognize the magnitude

of war and allowing enemies an advantage by over-emphasizing humanitarian law.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 4

United States ROE

Rules of engagement (ROE) is defined as, directives issued by competent military

authority that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will

initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered (United States

Marine Corp, n.d.).

Evolution of the War Zone

Warfare

The American war in Vietnam served as the turning point in American warfare. Before

Vietnam, a traditional style of war operated on the war zone. All parties in play wore their

respective uniforms, civilians were, for the most part, left out of fighting, and set rules of combat

were followed. Americas involvement in war prior to Vietnam ran closely to the previous

discussed humanitarian guidelines. Vietnam changed American warfare. Vietnam brought

guerilla warfare into the mainstream. Guerilla warfare focuses on concealment and camouflage.

It is a strategy where combatants, typically, blend in with their environment or civilian

population to scout the distinguished enemy to prepare for ambushes. In this manner, the

guerilla fighters, better known as insurgents, hold the benefits of both a soldier and a civilian

depending on the situation. This is where the rules of war and ethics are challenged. A violent

insurgent can fight by day, but if in danger, blend in with the civilian population as a safeguard

from American soldiers. This is where Rules of Engagement become important (Walzer, 1977,

p. 176-178).

Counterinsurgency

With the evolving war zone, counterinsurgency has now become the warfare of today,

especially in United States military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The identification of
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 5

insurgents and handling insurgents warfare tactics are the two biggest problems in the

counterinsurgency battle. Because enemies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan practice guerilla

warfare as insurgents and blend into the civilian populations, the traditional Rules of

Engagement, built on the traditional warfare model, become nearly impossible to apply to the

counterinsurgency battlefields. Insurgent forces use tactics such as surprise attacks, roadside

IEDs, hit-and-run attacks and then draw back and melt into the civilian population where Rules

of Engagement often stop American soldiers from pursuing. (Pennekamp, 2012). The American

inability to, at times, fight back, creates win-win situations for the enemy insurgent forces. Rules

of Engagement and the provisions of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention allow insurgent forces

to take strategic advantage of American troops and allow the enemy to set the rules of conflict.

The insurgents position themselves so that the U.S. forces will either avoid attacking to prevent

civilian causalities, attack and cause civilian casualties, or lose soldiers. All three options are

victories in the eyes of the insurgents. Not only is the death of American soldiers detrimental to

the homeland support of the war, but also the killing of civilians becomes a means of

international conflict and a conduit of which insurgent forces can use to recruit more men on an

anti-American marketing strategy. Essentially, counterinsurgency warfare puts American forces

at the strategic disadvantage for their compliance with international and humanitarian law while

insurgent forces hold the upper hand for their noncompliance. This current system makes it

harder for democracies to follow the international law and act as an enabler for insurgent

populations to continue deliberately putting civilians at risk to gain a tactical advantage (Rosen,

2009).

Codes of Law
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 6

Cruel or inhuman treatment. The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts
to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering
(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical
abuse, upon another within his custody or control. (Section 3, U.S. Code 118-2441).

Torture, biological experiments, murder, mutilation, bodily injury, rape, sexual assault, and

taking hostages, along with inhuman treatment are all violations that are clearly defined under

U.S. law. These rules of engagement, some of which are completely necessary and

understandable, can be restricting to military goals and are easy to misinterpret in war ( U.S.

Code 118-2441). So, how can situations in the field where life or death situations take place

within seconds be judged by this high moral document that doesnt show empathy for the

realities of war (Friedman, 2011). However, while American law exists, so does international

law. The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of

war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting.

These documents provide international guidelines on the ethics and morals of fighting in a war

supported by a nation (Geneva, n.d.). Protocol I, an addition made to the Geneva Convention in

1949, is a series of laws that were created to help distinguish between civilians and combatants

and help ensure the safety of civilians and the protection of life that surround the war zone.

Protocol I, followed by the United States armed forces, outlaws harming civilian populations.

This code of international law, while it is an important establishment to put humanitarian law in

place, allows insurgents to hide behind a mask as a civilian to ensure their protection. Essentially,

Protocol I limits America by following this addition to the Geneva Convention while the enemies

take advantage with their noncompliance (ProtocolIadditionGenevaConvention,August12,

1949).

Rules of Engagement
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 7

In the book, Lone Survivor, Marcus Lutrell, a former U.S. Navy SEAL tells his personal story of

his mission that went wrong, Operation Red Wing, in 2005. The mission was to kill an al-Qaeda

leader in Afghanistan. Up on a mountain, setting up a position to get a clean shot on the al-

Qaeda leader, four trained Navy SEALs rested. Then, two goat farmers making their daily

commute for work from the Kunar province ran into the group of American soldiers. At this

point, with two of the locals in the SEALs hands, a difficult and potentially life threatening

decision had to be made. Essentially, if the group of SEALs kill the two men, they could

potentially face life in prison back home. On the other hand, if the SEALs let the two men go

they could easily run down to the village to alert the Taliban forces of the American soldiers

nearby. With limited options, the leader of the group, Murphy, decided to let the men go after

long discussion. Within the hour, as the four soldiers called off the mission and began trekking

back, over 200 Taliban soldiers surrounded the four trained soldiers. That day in the Kunar

Province, three of those American Navy SEALs lost their lives. In addition, another eight SEALs

and eight Marines lost their lives coming in for back up. The story of Operation Red Wing

shows the gravity and strong sense of ethics that hides in the realities of the war zone (Lutrell,

2007). It is a struggle to figure out how to establish an objective Rules of Engagement (ROE)

that allows soldiers the ability to protect themselves and the public, yet prevent tragic occasions

where civilians may be mistaken for threats and their human rights heavily violated (Donati,

2016). Thomas Hardee, A Navy Seal for almost 20 years that lives in Virginia Beach, explained

how every day, every minute, every second Rules of Engagement were kept in the minds of the

soldiers when on tour. The SEAL explained how every morning they would sit down with a Jag

Officer to discuss the relevant Rules of Engagement as they pertained to the current war zone.

Adapting the Rules of Engagement to the war zone is a crucial step to take a document, like
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 8

Protocol I, written in 1949, and apply it to an ever changing war zone (T. Hardee, Personal

Interview, Dec. 1, 2016). The problem with Rules of Engagement is that the overarching

guidelines must hold liberal enough to protect U.S. forces and civilians in changing war zones

where unconventional forms of attack, such as underground explosives or suicide bombers, are

common. At the same time, the Rules of Engagement must be strict enough to prevent

unnecessary events that result in the harm of innocent civilians (Friedman, 2011). What the

Rules of Engagement ensure is that a soldier has his or her right to immediate self-defense.

Where the ethics and law comes into play is the important interpretation as to what classifies as

an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The law lacks to discern on how to classify

an imminent threat. More so, with the war zone always evolving, it is impossible to create

guidelines to the infinite numbers of situations that could occur on the battlefield. In the case of

the lone survivor, a unique situation, one could easily say the correct choice would have been to

kill the goat farmers. This shows how hindsight bias factors into decisions on what is considered

self-defense (Front Line, 2008). For example, in March of 2005, a car that held an Italian

journalist and an Italian intelligence officer were racing to the Baghdad airport and put in a call

to the American authorities to prompt their passage through an American checkpoint. As the car

approached the checkpoint with speed, the American authorities running the check point

motioned the car to slow down. Flares and gunshots were shot off as warning, yet the car

continued to charge towards the checkpoint. Out of self-defense the soldiers opened fire on

the car, killing the Italian intelligence officer. However, because the Rules of Engagement

allowed them to act out of self-defense, after several warnings were motioned, the Americans

were not charged. They were innocent because of the imminent threat. Anyone could have

been in that car (Paul, 2005). The Rules of Engagement often changed based on the situation and
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 9

the realities of the war zone. If the conflict is a full-out war, it is often safer because the enemy

can be distinguished. It is the policing efforts done by American soldiers that bring the most

danger, American causalities, and civilian casualties. Thomas Hardee, a former SEAL, explained

how in the early stages of the war on terror in Afghanistan, the Rules of Engagement allowed

him to kill any person pointing a cell phone in their direction or even digging a hole on the side

of the road. The flexibility of such Rules of Engagement occur due to the intensity of the war at

the time and the possible danger planting a bomb in the ground or recording American soldiers

for intelligence can hold to the soldiers lives. On the other hand, if not at war or policing, the

Rules of Engagement are much stricter. Hardee recalls a time where he was riding in his

Humvee full of soldiers in Iraq in 2005, and there would be men riding on motorcycles directly

alongside of the American Humvees while relaying information to another source on their flip

phones. The Rules of Engagement at the time didnt allow the American soldiers to kill the

motorcyclist because they posed no immediate threat, and therefor, the soldiers didnt have a

reason to take action. While the threat was not immediate, the intelligence relayed by the

motorcyclist was used to set up direct attacks on the Humvees. The Rules of Engagement not

allowing the soldiers to take immediate action in this situation poses a stronger threat to the

soldiers (T. Hardee, Professional Interview, Dec. 1, 2016). Truthfully, America has the money,

power, and ability to conquer the majority of situations that occur in the field. New technology

has allowed more power with less American casualties. The problem is that The Rules of

Engagement are too strict to allow Americas Armed Forces to go full force due to the parameters

of international law such as Protocol I in the Geneva Convention (Pennekamp, 2012).

Furthermore, the Rules of Engagement often allow combatants to blend in to the population and

tactically hold an advantage in their attack. In order to prevent death, the new steps need to be
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 10

taken. A soldier doesnt have time to vacillate between taking a shot that could save a life and

holding back just because in the back of his mind the soldier has to be able to justify the killing

of the enemy in a court of law (Kyle, 2012). In war, and this has been true ever since the

establishment of war when mankind was born, there lies an extremely blurred line as to where a

soldiers occupation and protection meets the humanitarian rights of civilians that reside within

combatant territory. Where the U.S. soldier crosses or does not cross that line is the question

(Donati, 2016).

Media Bias

Why now? Why are rules of engagement now starting to pop up in the past twenty years?

Ethical issues regarding civilians natural humanitarian rights occurred throughout history up

until present day. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives citizens the right to

freedom of press. The media works to make a story. In America and war, there are two sides: the

courageous American Soldier, and the American soldier who is abusing his power to treat

innocent civilians inhumanely (Lutrell, 2007). There is no such thing as an objective writer or

reporter because information is spiked in the regards to what caught the readers attention most.

So, minor details are elaborated and ethical problems, such as Rules of Engagement, are isolated

to the inhumane men of the United States creating chaos in the world. Truthfully, the moral

standards of war are not new, and yet they are forever changing. The introduction of media in

America's Press and the forever changing opinions of the people of America, essentially, is what

has brought the ethical issue of laws of engagement into clear sight and importance (Media bias,

gale). In a court case, Sharratt v. Murtha, the appellant, Sharratt brought suit against

Congressman John Murtha for statements Murtha made to the media about the Haditha incident.

In Haditha, Iraq in 2005 a group of U.S. Marines allegedly killed 24 unarmed civilians as what
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 11

was said to be an act of revenge for a previous explosive attack on the Marines. The case ended

up being dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Sharratt was one of the soldiers involved in the

Haitha incident. Sharratt brought suit because Murthas statements entered the national media

where he released information that he said was from the highest level of the Marine Corps and

that the Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood. The information, which was never

confirmed, was broadcasted on national television and aired on CNN and NPR. The United

States dismissed Sharratts compliant pursuant because the Department of Justice concluded that

Murtha was acting within the scope of his federal employment when making the comments

giving rise to Sharratts common-law causes of action. Agreeing with the outcome of the court

case, the public has the right to speak and speak it will (Sharratt v. Murtha) Thomas Hardee, on

the other hand, takes a liberal stand point and believes that the media should have access to all

information, and a soldier should be punished if a mistake is made (T. Hardee, Professional

Interview, Dec. 1, 2016) Unlike Hardee, some soldiers believe media and the politicians dont

have the right to send soldiers into battle and into positions the rest of America would be terrified

to take part in and then interfere with their progress. Marcus Lutrell saw the repercussions of

allowing media and politicians take control in his story about Operation Redwing. This is how

Lutrell feels:

Well, the view of most Navy SEALs, the public does not have that right to know, not if it
means placing our lives in unnecessary peril because someone in Washington is driving
himself mad worrying about the human rights of some cold-hearted terrorist fanatic who
would kill us as soon as look at us, as well as any other American at whom he could point
that wonky old AK of his. (Lutrell, 22)

People in the armed forces hold different views about the role the media plays in war, but it is

certain that the restrictions upheld by the media and politicians often put American soldiers in

vulnerable situations where the split second decisions can prove costly (Lutrell, 2007).
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 12

Crossing the Blurred Line

The line is not crossed as long as the decision made can be justified within the soldiers

head. When a soldier believes that their actions are taken in a response to a direct threat or a fear

of their life then, most likely, the situation has not crossed the line. The fear of prosecution is not

something a soldier is afraid of because it disables the soldier from being aggressive. It is

difficult to prosecute a soldier who is fighting for their country for reacting to a threat or

defending his or herself. Crossing the line often occurs when anger, revenge, or a reaction that is

not immediate is involved. When the response or action taken is premeditated or not self-

defense then, often, the soldier crosses that blurred line of humanitarian law outline in the Rules

of Engagement (T. Hardee, Professional Interview, Dec. 1, 2016). For example, while on a

patrol in Iraq an army group under sergeant Hatley passed a lone Iraqi in the streets, and he

proceeded to run into shelter. Naturally, although there was no evidence on this guy, the team of

U.S. soldiers followed him up the building and then detained five male citizens with no evidence

but a possession of a rifle against him. Long story short: the sergeant in control had the detainees

driven to a canal in the dark where they proceeded to execute the blindfolded detainees and

dump them into the river with no real evidence or defense for their work. Hatley made it clear to

the soldiers that the way he decided to handle situations were in the best interest of American

lives and that the soldiers would follow his own set of rules. This sergeant was charged with 20

years in an American prison. So, when the line is truly crossed, America does, and has, taken its

part in prosecuting the man who strips civilians of their rights and takes a matter across the

blurred line (Langewiesche, n.d.). The diversity of situations that can unfold on a battlefield and

the ethics involved in combat leave a blurred line in what violates humanitarian law. However,

war is reality. Obvious action can be seen when a soldier crosses the line on purpose rather than
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 13

making a simple split second mistake in an attempt to protect his or her brothers at war. When

the line is truly crossed, American soldiers cannot use defending their country as a scapegoat to

justifying their inhumane actions (Lutrell, 2007). It is important to introduce the conscious of

killing. Killing another person is not an easy thing to do for most soldiers, yet it is a necessity in

combat. Chris Kyle, a former U.S. marine and one of the most lethal snipers in U.S. military

history, understands the conscious behind pulling the trigger. Not only does he recognize that an

unjustified shot will land a sniper in prison, but he understood the conscious behind targeting

insurgents and the fog of uncertainty insurgents create. Chris Kyle explained how his first and

most difficult kill as a sniper was a mother drawing a grenade from her clothing. He also

explained the thought process of morally not being able to pull the trigger on a young child

attempting to operate an RPG. Most importantly, Chris Kyle demonstrated the point that there is

a strong conscious to killing. Unless by self-defense, it is not always easy to gun down another

human being, and if the line is crossed, a soldier will consciously know if his or her personal

actions crossed the blurred line (Kyle, 2012).

Counter

In opposition, from the point of view of terrorist organizations or insurgent enemies, the U.S. has

natural hatred towards terrorist groups and their style of combat and are using this hatred, which

has accumulated to an easy excuse or scapegoat to legitimize the killing of a combatant, whether

it is just or not. No matter the violence the insurgent may display, the American has the ability to

use the defense of his country as an easy way out. This scape goat method and the tendency of

the U.S. soldiers to be exhibiting "good violence" has led the United States to profile enemies

related to terrorist organizations as "others" and leads to their inhuman treatment without

punishment (Duvvuru, 2013). Yes, there is sense to the enemys side, but its not entirely true and
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 14

one important thing to remember: war is a reality. Obvious action can be seen when a soldier

crosses the line on purpose rather than making a simple split second mistake in an attempt to

protect his brothers. When the line is truly crossed, the scapegoat is not always effective.

(Lutrell, 2007) In fact, it is not the soldiers that are the insurgents or civilians concern. It is

often the U.S. military weapons that have imperfect targeting methods that often kill or injure

large numbers of civilians. The soldiers conscious mind allows them to analyze the situation of

the counterinsurgency warfare from the ground (Kahl, 2006). Also, for example, when a Muslim

enemy, such as the Taliban, argue that killing for war is a scapegoat, the enemy forgets to

mention the advantage they hold. When a bomb or shooting erupts that originated from an

American weapon kills civilians, or even insurgents who are acting like civilians, the enemy

grows. Insurgent warfare will market civilians deaths at the hands of U.S. forces to recruit more

soldiers for groups like the Taliban to make stronger armies to fight with a stronger passion of

anti-Americanism.

Solutions

Thomas Hardee mentioned how the Rules of Engagement have improved throughout

time with counterinsurgency warfare. The Rules of Engagement are more lenient yet more

precise and descriptive to help soldiers ensure their safety while still fighting the enemy (T.

Hardee, Professional Interview, Dec. 1, 2016). While the Rules of Engagement continue to

improve to match new war zones, the ethics involved in combat, especially with insurgents, will

always create a blurred line, just as it has throughout the history of war. Now, the solution

involves a change. The American forces need to make a big shift from their kill-capture

strategy to a more nuanced win-the-population strategy. Essentially, instead of pursuing the

insurgents to kill or capture them, the force should be focused on promoting local government
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 15

and economic programs to help develop and win over the civilian populations where insurgent

forces reside. This strategy will prove extremely difficult from a Rules of Engagement stand

point, however, using the force to ensure the cooperation of the local community so that the

civilians detach from the local insurgent power. Currently, the insurgents continue to feed the

anti-Americanism mindset and the idea that Americans are cold-blooded killers into the mind of

the locals to keep the civilians loyalty. Breaking the bond between the civilians and insurgents

will weaken the insurgent forces and potentially cause fewer situations to occur where a blurred

line is created due to the ethics and humanitarian law that appears in a war zone situation

(Pennekamp, 2012). Avoiding potential massacres or incidents from occurring is the first

step in gaining the trust of the noncombatant population and weakening the anti-Americanism

hate in insurgent war zones. Making this change is a potential solution for counterinsurgency

warfare, but also, ensuring that U.S. forces comply with noncombatant immunity is not just the

right thing to do for the civilians; it is also the right thing to do for Americans (Kahl, 2006).

In the present war zone, current United States Rules of Engagement are increasing

vulnerability of the American Soldier in foreign war zones by failing to recognize the magnitude

of war and allowing enemies an advantage by over-emphasizing humanitarian law. The realities

and diversity of the war zone often create a blurred line on whether an American soldiers actions

are unethical or violating humanitarian laws. The new and developed style of warfare,

counterinsurgency, makes is easy for the enemy to blend into the civilian population, allowing

insurgents to capitalize on strategic advantages that occur because of their noncompliance with

humanitarian and international laws. It is important to understand the possible situations soldiers

enter in war and understand the conscious of killing when dealing with the Rules of Engagement

and counterinsurgency warfare. There is a large moral decision involved in taking the life of
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 16

another human and one thing American soldiers dont need to hinder their responsibilities on the

battle field is to wonder whether they can justify a shot made on an insurgent, who is most likely

working to kill Americans, to a lawyer back in the United States. In a time of battle, where

tensions flare and risk is high, out of date Rules of Engagement and men in America who have

zero understanding of the battlefield interrupt a soldiers ability to do their job, turning an

already dangerous battlefield into an increased chance of possible American fatalities. Save

Americas troops.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 17

References

Crimes, U.S. Code 118-2441 Part 1 (1996).

Donati, J. (2016, February 01). U.S. military Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan questioned.

Retrieved October 18, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-rules-of-

engagement-in-afghanistan-questioned-1454349100

Duvvuru, K. (2013). Arab muslims should not be profiled in the War on Terror. In C. Ullmann &

L. M. Zott (Eds.), Racial Profiling (Opposing Viewpoints). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Friedman, L. (2011). Who are we fighting? Conceptions of the enemy in the war on terror. Ohio

Northern University Law Review, 37, 11-22.

Front line the Rules of Engagement. (2008, February 19). Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/themes/roe.html

Gasser, H. (1998, November 30). International humanitarian law and the protection of war

victims. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jm93.htm

Geneva Conventions. (n.d.). Retrieved December 22, 2015, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

Hardee, T. (2016, December 1). Senior project professional interview [Telephone interview].

Kahl, C. H. (2006). How we fight. Foreign Affairs, 85(6), 83-101. Retrieved from

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2006-11-01/how-we-fight

Kyle, C., McEwen, S., & DeFelice, J. (2012). American sniper: The autobiography of the most

lethal sniper in U.S. military history. New York: W. Morrow.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 18

Langewiesche, W. (n.d.). How One U.S. Soldier Blew the Whistle on a Cold-Blooded War

Crime. Retrieved from http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/iraq-war-crime-army-

cunningham-hatley-trial

Luttrell, M., & Robinson, P. (2007). Lone survivor: The eyewitness account of Operation

Redwing and the lost heroes of SEAL Team 10. New York: Little, Brown.

Media Bias. (2015). In Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale. Retrieved

December 11, 2015, from

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindowWar

Paul, J. (2005). Global policy forum war and occupation in Iraq. Retrieved from

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37151-war-and-

occupation-in-iraq-chapter-7-english.html

Pennekamp, A. (2012). Standards of engagement: Rethinking Rules of Engagement to more

effectively fight counterinsurgency campaigns (L. Qadir & M. Murrell, Eds.).

Georgetown Law Journal, 101(6), 1-30. Retrieved from

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/standards-of-engagement-rethinking-rules-of-

engagement-to-more-effectively-fight-counterinsurgency-campaigns/

Protocol I addition Geneva Convention, 1125 United Nations Article 51 Article 54 et seq.

(August 12, 1949).

Rosen, R. D. (2009). Targeting enemy forces in the war on terror: Preserving civilian immunity.

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42(3), 683-693.

Sharratt v. Murtha, No. 10-2225 (United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit July 12, 2011)

(Google Scholar, Dist. file).

United States Marine Corp. (Law of war/ Introduction to Rules of Engagement.) italics. (n.d.).
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 19

Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (3rd ed.).

New York: Basic Books.