ABSTRACT
Since 2001, America has focused on its military’s deployments and concomitant use of force throughout the world or-as the warriors themselves call it-downrange. Arguments may be posited, pro and con, as to the utility of what has collectively come to be known as the rules of engagement (ROE) for the application of force in foreign countries. These rules attempt to create an operational link between the nation’s overarching strategic goals and the tactical application of force at the pointy end of the spear. For instance, the United States could rapidly eliminate enemy resistance within a walled city by simply executing a Rolling Thunder-type solution: wave after wave of bombers indiscriminately killing every remnant of human life within that battle space. Would this serve to accomplish our national interests? On the one hand, yes. It would indeed remove the immediate threat posed by an entrenched enemy behind the city walls. However, from the perspectives of both international law and our long-term strategic interests, it would expose us to the world as barbaric monsters: perhaps no better than the radical jihadist terrorists we are supposed to be fighting.
