3 ms·

Just another anecdote: one of my best friends who managed to keep his liberal leanings while serving as a Marine sniper in Iraq, told me he found working for a

by danso 8y ago

Just another anecdote: one of my best friends who managed to keep his liberal leanings while serving as a Marine sniper in Iraq, told me he found working for a contractor (forgot which one, but it wasn't Blackwater) for the State Department to have stricter rules of engagement than what he experienced during his tours of duty. The example he gave was a scenario in which he were to spot someone who appeared to be setting up an IED trap on a road. As a Marine, he'd be justified in shooting the suspected insurgent. But as a contractor, he was instructed to avoid conflict (and the ensuing controversy) unless he/the U.S. embassy were facing imminent danger -- so the preferred course of action would be to call in what he saw for someone else to deal with.

dogma1138 8y ago
The ROE is stipulated in the contract if it’s not troop supplement or “combat advisory” the ROE will be very restrictive especially on the protection details contracts they are often not allowed to engage even at the clear signs of hostile action as long as it’s not targeted at them or US personnel. As in they can witness a whole village being razed and wouldn’t be allowed to fire a single shot whilst a soldier would be compelled to engage and for the most part an order not to do so will likely be an illegal one.
walrus01 8y ago
Former contractor here: We were armed 24x7 and had VERY restrictive, defensive only ROE. I slept with a loaded VZ58 next to my bed for years. We drove around armed and wearing body armor whenever we left a compound or base. Our supervisors, the organization which employed our company, and their senior management were exceedingly clear that we were only authorized to aim or discharge a weapon in self defense. People reading articles like this may get the idea that the vast army of "contractors" which were shuffling around Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2003-2011 time frame were somehow in offensive roles. Even Blackwater had a fairly restrictive ROE. The actual number of contractors who were in any way proactively engaged in combat operations, usually embedded with an organization with the ANA or ANP, I would estimate at about 1% of the contractor population total. The remaining 99% were confined to a strictly defensive ROE. Nobody wanted to piss away their $170k a year, nearly tax free job because they'd mistaken something that wasn't a threat, for an actual threat. VBIED, BBIED and other threats to vehicles while driving around are not going to be solved by shooting at people anyways. In the entire multi year time period that I spent in operational areas, not a single person from the company that I worked for ever discharged a weapon, for any reason, outside of the shooting range.
- godelmachine 8y ago
  May I ask what’s ROE?
  - danso 8y ago
    Rules of engagement
  - afarrell 8y ago
    Rules of Engagement -- general orders about how to evaluate when it is acceptable to use violent force.
    - narag 8y ago
      There was a movie with that title. I haven't watched it but it always comes to mind because "engagement" was translated to Spanish as "compromiso", as if you buy a ring to the enemy or try to reach a deal with them like "ok, shoot me but only from 9 to 5" :)
- raprp 8y ago
  > Nobody wanted to piss away their $170k a year, nearly tax free job because they'd mistaken something that wasn't a threat Shouldn't they be worried of killing an innocent by mistake instead of losing the cash? At some point did you believe on the humanitarian invasion BS or you always knew that you were just destroying these places to profit from it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by danso 8y ago

dogma1138 8y ago

The ROE is stipulated in the contract if it’s not troop supplement or “combat advisory” the ROE will be very restrictive especially on the protection details contracts they are often not allowed to engage even at the clear signs of hostile action as long as it’s not targeted at them or US personnel. As in they can witness a whole village being razed and wouldn’t be allowed to fire a single shot whilst a soldier would be compelled to engage and for the most part an order not to do so will likely be an illegal one.

walrus01 8y ago

Former contractor here: We were armed 24x7 and had VERY restrictive, defensive only ROE. I slept with a loaded VZ58 next to my bed for years. We drove around armed and wearing body armor whenever we left a compound or base. Our supervisors, the organization which employed our company, and their senior management were exceedingly clear that we were only authorized to aim or discharge a weapon in self defense. People reading articles like this may get the idea that the vast army of "contractors" which were shuffling around Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2003-2011 time frame were somehow in offensive roles. Even Blackwater had a fairly restrictive ROE. The actual number of contractors who were in any way proactively engaged in combat operations, usually embedded with an organization with the ANA or ANP, I would estimate at about 1% of the contractor population total. The remaining 99% were confined to a strictly defensive ROE. Nobody wanted to piss away their $170k a year, nearly tax free job because they'd mistaken something that wasn't a threat, for an actual threat. VBIED, BBIED and other threats to vehicles while driving around are not going to be solved by shooting at people anyways. In the entire multi year time period that I spent in operational areas, not a single person from the company that I worked for ever discharged a weapon, for any reason, outside of the shooting range.

godelmachine 8y ago
May I ask what’s ROE?
- danso 8y ago
  Rules of engagement
- afarrell 8y ago
  Rules of Engagement -- general orders about how to evaluate when it is acceptable to use violent force.
  - narag 8y ago
    There was a movie with that title. I haven't watched it but it always comes to mind because "engagement" was translated to Spanish as "compromiso", as if you buy a ring to the enemy or try to reach a deal with them like "ok, shoot me but only from 9 to 5" :)
raprp 8y ago
> Nobody wanted to piss away their $170k a year, nearly tax free job because they'd mistaken something that wasn't a threat Shouldn't they be worried of killing an innocent by mistake instead of losing the cash? At some point did you believe on the humanitarian invasion BS or you always knew that you were just destroying these places to profit from it?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]