Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement is a topic that is least talked about but has a broad meaning to the subject. The term has been featured in many discussions from as measly as a common conversation to as brawny as a president’s address to the country. To completely understand this concept, one must comprehend how it’s defined in each situation, the time period in which the term was enforced, and the violations of going against rules.

For as long as we can remember, the idea of Rules of Engagement has been mentioned and used for centuries throughout the wars this planet has endured. Dates take back to when World War II was in the midst of happening. Whether the definition can be explained as to when to approach or how much force is needed when attacking the enemy, it all leads to the same question: when and how are we going to engage in the situation? Certain requirements must be in action for the Rules to be implemented. It can be either a terrorist attack, riots, or even assassinations for the military and political institutions of government to come to an agreement on how to engage the current situation. While understanding the latest condition, it is also important to think about possible potential scenarios for a positive outcome.

Thinking of ways to deal with Mobs who are unarmed and avoiding civilian fatalities or their properties are examples of positive scenarios. For example, this statement by Regina Kingsley mentions that; “Directives issued by competent military authority which specify the circumstances and limitations under which forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered”. This means that not only does the military and government have to figure out how to attack but to know when to cease with the least amount of casualties. One can compare Rules of Engagement to a game of chess. The goal is to remove all of the enemy’s pieces including their king while each piece has a specific limitation of moves and the amount of turn the player has.

This is a prime example because when playing, one would think of the many options or opportunities he or she has to become victorious against the other player While the term is mainly used for war, it can also be used for other situations. Individuals such as police, firefighters, or a common civilian can have different meanings for it. Overall; just as it was mentioned before, the term leads to one idea and it’s to understand when, where, and how to be involved going against the enemy or the problem. In other words, one can say that the main goal of this broad term is to maintain optimal control of the situation without any harsh decisions in the process.

There are multiple moments in time that mention the term or idea of rules of engagement using different types of perspectives. Most of those outlooks, especially military wise, are involved in events such as wars. Usually, wars are known to be controlled by documents such as treaties and indenture. Earlier it was mentioned that dates can be traced back since World War II. multiple wars One event that can be touched upon is the Geneva Conventions during WWII. This noteworthy event was recognized for the number of agreements that were made. Though the term was not thoroughly spoken about the proposal of the subject was detected. According to the website, “ICRC”, “They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers, and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war.”

This statement explains that one of the agreements was about how to engage in aiding those who lost their homes due to casualties of war as well as those who are severely ill and what measures are needed to be taken to satisfy their needs. While the Geneva convention mainly focused on citizens, rules of engagement are known for being a present-day term revolving around war tactics. Another moment history would be a war that is well known is the Cold War. The reason for the name is because both sides were uneasy about the thought of war using nuclear weapons to which would cause most of humanity to be wiped out. To summarize this event, both the U.S and the Soviet Union are two of three super-states that came to a halt after a nuclear weapon manufacturing race.

Since 1945, an estimate of 125,000 nuclear warheads has been created but only two were used and the majority of them belonged to the U.S. and Soviet Union combined. When referring back to the website “Britannica”, it explains that–” In 1962 the Soviets began secretly installing missiles in Cuba that could be used to launch nuclear attacks on U.S. cities. This sparked the Cuban missile crisis (1962), a confrontation that brought the two superpowers to the brink of war before an agreement was reached to withdraw the missiles. The Cuban missile crisis showed that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was ready to use nuclear weapons for fear of the other’s retaliation (and thus of mutual atomic annihilation).”. This is a prime example