This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

(2004) There is an increase in the use of Private Military Companies (PMC's) in modern conflict. Typically these companies are not bound by the same ROE and well thought out standing orders that a national military force adheres to. Nor are they typically as accountable. This increases the likelihood of Type II errors.

Ah...can someone give an example of this? I've never heard this before, and at the very least, I'm quite interested to know. At the very most, it could be factually inaccurate, not that I have any proof. Endersdouble 20:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking strictly anecdotally, I would say that the involvement of military contractors in Abu Ghraib (see New Yorker article, I'm sorry I don't have the reference) contributed to frustrating US goals in Iraq and was therefore a Type II error.

If you are looking for text references, Larry Diamond writes of "different rules of engagement" in Iraq (he is referring to non-military allied forces, including police). (Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2004, "What went wront in Iraq"). Does that help?--Magicmike 16:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also recommend "New and old Wars" (Kaldor,M). --Magicmike 19:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

• Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.

• Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.

• Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.

• Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.

• Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

This seems worth incorporating somehow, and is within the public domain. Rorybowman 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should be tagged for not representing a worldwide view; it only presents ROE for Britain and the U.S. Maybe if someone knows other ROE's, we can expand the article.

The page on MMORPGs refers to the game "Rubies of Eventide" occasionally abbreviated as "RoE," and links to the article under "RoE," which is, mistakenly, this one. I have already posted this problem under the page for Rubies of Eventide in hopes that someone will make a distinction between the two "RoE" pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.206.147 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

There needs to be a much stronger criticism section of the ROE. As the article stands, the ROE are described in terse, matter-of-fact, almost legalese language, and they are taken for granted as a positive (or at worst a neutral), an avant-garde, and a common-sensible policy. Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor" (The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10) provides a withering critique of America's rules of engagement from a professional soldier. "On a treeless mountainside [in Afghanistan] far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all." Diana West's Death by rules of engagement on "our outrageous rules of engagement" makes for interesting reading ("the SEALs … were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral"). DW's conclusion: "A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the 'unarmed civilians' they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival." Asteriks 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Speaking as a statistician without military experience, it appears that Type I error (false alarm) and Type II error (failure to identify) are reversed from normal usage. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.5.7 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section about British ROE is somewhat off-topic. That section could be renamed "Definition of ROE" to make more sense--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thing that rules of engagement should be redirected to the disambiguation page, since most of the people who search it are looking for the show MakE (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rules of Engagement is a military term. Police use of force is guided by Deadly Force Policy. What was considered shocking about the Ruby Ridge incident was the militaristic Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement which everyone from reporter Jess Walter to FBI sniper Chris Whitcomb considered to be a departure from the norm. In the aftermath of the Ruby Ridge and Waco Sieges, it also came to light that DEA, USMS, BATF and FBI all operated under different Deadly Force policies, which could prove diasaterous in a multi-agency task force. Part of the reform of federal law enforcement in response to Ruby Ridge and Waco was the formulation of a standard Deady Force Policy for all federal law enforcement agencies. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a joke? The anti-Israel activists go to every corner of Wikipedia to spew their trash. Listing the recent Gaza Flotilla incident as an example of loose ROE? Give us a break. Go spread your propaganda on one of the myriad of anti-Israel and anti-semitic websites out there, and stay away from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.67.70 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one cares. 12.86.230.202 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The very first sentence, with its weird mention of piracy, doesn't make any sense at all. As well, in a later section, someone has shovelled in a reference to a critique that just comes out of nowhere. It should be in the critique section. I came looking for specific information and found, essentially, junk that had been edited by persons apparently seeking to enforce a POV on the overall article. Disappointing. Theonemacduff (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a fairly significant number of changes to the article, to try to narrow the focus and actually discuss the subject. I am having some difficulty finding a credible source on the general subject, although there are some specific British ones that I have access to.

I removed the NATO/ Brit/ USMC section as it wasn't really all that useful. Whilst the Brit section was apposite he article shouldn't be Brit centric. The USMC material was more about classification of subject individuals than RoE per se.

The ranty section has come out completely. There are issues with RoE, but the fact that murder isn't really permitted isn't a flaw and not really part of the grown up debate about how they're used.

ALR (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Rules of Engagement is under discussion, see Talk:Rules of Engagement (TV series). -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi This article is missing some history content. I believe this need to be resolved as well. Nightvour (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]