While reading this article on BBC news, two items did not quite fit with what we have been learning and discussing in class.
First, the article discusses the usage of Iraqi police in combination with US soldiers. What rules are supposed to be followed if the US soldiers are expected to continue fighting the insurgents but at the same time are expected to interact with the Iraq police. I would assume that the domestic police force have different 'rule of engagement' per se than soldiers. Is this an issue, or what 'evolution' have the ROW experienced to deal with such a situation, are they even applicable?
Second, at the end of the article, it notes that civilian clothed soldiers were sent into a neighborhood:
"Fighting broke out after US troops in civilian clothes entered a central district of Hilla, they said. US military sources said the clash started after troops went to arrest rogue elements in the Mehdi Army."
Does this not go against one of the primary 'norms/rules' that were designed to protect our soldiers abroad? This little sentence indicates to me a policy decision that indicates a disregard for the well being of the US soldier or a lack of understanding of the purpose and design of the ROW designed to protect POWs.
First, the article discusses the usage of Iraqi police in combination with US soldiers. What rules are supposed to be followed if the US soldiers are expected to continue fighting the insurgents but at the same time are expected to interact with the Iraq police. I would assume that the domestic police force have different 'rule of engagement' per se than soldiers. Is this an issue, or what 'evolution' have the ROW experienced to deal with such a situation, are they even applicable?
Second, at the end of the article, it notes that civilian clothed soldiers were sent into a neighborhood:
"Fighting broke out after US troops in civilian clothes entered a central district of Hilla, they said. US military sources said the clash started after troops went to arrest rogue elements in the Mehdi Army."
Does this not go against one of the primary 'norms/rules' that were designed to protect our soldiers abroad? This little sentence indicates to me a policy decision that indicates a disregard for the well being of the US soldier or a lack of understanding of the purpose and design of the ROW designed to protect POWs.
No comments:
Post a Comment