The Form of Money :: Main Page

During the invasion of Iraq, during the push north to Baghdad, the Rules of Engagement given to me were gradually reduced to nonexistence. By the time we got to Baghdad, I was explicitly told by my chain of command that I could shoot anyone who came closer to me than I felt comfortable with.

At the start of that second deployment, our standing Rules of Engagement were that someone had to be displaying hostile intent and committing a hostile act before deadly force could be used. The commander who had given us the mission ordered anyone wearing a black dishdasha and a red headscarf was displaying “hostile intent” and a “hostile action” and was to be shot. Carrying a shovel, standing on a rooftop while speaking on a cell phone, or holding binoculars or being out after curfew constituted hostile intent, and we were authorized to use deadly force.

The Rules of Engagement were very flexible. After our own casualties mounted the Rules changed. We were allowed to engage anyone with a weapon without calling in and asking permission from the higher command. With no way to identify their attackers, and no clear mission worth dying for, marines viewed the Rules of Engagement as either a joke or a technicality to be worked around so that they could bring each other home alive. Not only are the misuses of the Rules of Engagement in Iraq indicative of supreme incompetence, they are also a moral disgrace. A lot of enemy combatants that we shot were really civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.