ABSTRACT
Today’s restraints for military personnel If ever there was such an identifiable Western tradition (see for a critique Lynn 2003), today this dichotomy between Western and non-Western ways of war seems to be a lot less straightforward. As has been mentioned in numerous other introductory chapters, for most militaries in the West the core tasks changed radically following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the reduced risk of a major conflict, and shifted from the conventional task of national defense to the handling of international crises in its broadest sense, ranging from humanitarian missions to regular warfare. At a time when the capacity for destruction is greater than ever, these new operations, even if they on occasion effectively boil down to traditional warfare, often require a lot of restraint on the side of Western military personnel. This is, in fact, considered to be one of the defining characteristics of what has actually been coined the New Western Way of War by another author (Shaw 2005). Not too long ago, US soldiers and marines in Iraq, for instance,
continue[d] to report being in threatening situations where they were unable to respond due to the Rules of Engagement (ROE). In interviews, Soldiers reported that Iraqis would throw gasoline-filled bottles (i.e., Molotov cocktails) at their vehicles, yet they were prohibited from responding with force for nearly a month until the ROE were changed. Soldiers also reported they are still not allowed to respond with force when Iraqis drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses on them when they drive by. Every group of Soldiers and Marines interviewed reported that they felt the existing ROE tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war.
