Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far

[Brett Paatsch]

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> But how can *you* guarantee it Stuart? What does 
>> your *guarantee* mean in this context?
>> 
>> Is it a legal term? Are you promising Samantha or
>> others
>> that if the military fires at, or bombs  people that
>> you 
>> personally will make good on any loss?
> 
> Sheesh. Too many attorneys on the list. ;)

Nah, I'm not an attorney. Australian's have lawyers and 
solicitors, and I'm not either of those either. 

> Actually I
> may have overstated myself. To rephrase more
> accurately, I am certain, to my own satisfaction mind
> you, that the U.S. military mandates and takes great
> pains these days to make sure that innocent civilians
> are not harmed by their soldiers during armed
> conflict. The civillian casualties that do occur are
> almost all accidents.

Sounds right to me. 

> Those very few soldiers that
> purposefully disregard this are brought to justice by
> their peers and their chain of command. And to a
> certain extent, yes, I do personally feel remorse at
> the death of civillians even when I am not the one
> pulling the trigger.  

Sounds right to me too, based on what I've seen of
you. 
 
>> > In any conflict involving U.S. troops, rules of
>> > engagement are very clearly spelled out, flash
>> cards
>> > summarizing them are issued, and violations are
>> taken
>> > very seriously.
>> 
>> In any? ;-)  That is truly a magnificent
>> accomplishment.
>> Perhaps the military should be running all aspects
>> of 
>> government and management then, if they have reached
>> such sophistication in anticipation and education.
> 
> ummmm.... NO. Although there does seem to be a rise in
> armed conflicts in American schools these days, using
> the military to solve this would be like using a
> sledge hammer to fix a toothache.
 
I'm just gently stirring you, Stuart. But I did have a bit of a
point in mind.  That is that rules of engagement for conduct
in military situations can hardly be less likely to produce
human error than "rules of engagement" under non military
situations as the people involved in both are essentially
the same. 

We (people) stuff up plenty, even when we don't have to
make decisions under fire and under conditions of extreme
stress, and getting more to the point now, when we have
'rules of engagement' that are the laws of our land, or oaths
taken, or promises made, or contracts agreed too, we still
clearly do managed to achieve quite a lot of non lethal 
conflict.  
 
> 
>> Perhaps the US Constitition and the UN Charter
>> should
>> be relabelled and called the US Rules of Engagement
>> and the UN Rules of Engagement.  ;-)
> 
> heh. I personally don't think that there will be a one
> world goverment unless or until it can be demonstrated
> that potentially hostile intelligent life exists
> elsewhere in the universe.

Wow, I didn't see the digression coming. 

> There just isn't enough evolutionary pressure to select for
> it. But if it should ever, for whatever reason, come about,
> I hope whatever charter or constitution the United Nations of
> Earth adopts would be based in large part upon the
> U.S. Constitution.

I like the US Constitution too. And the UN Charter. And as
Mike has pretty much convinced me of, whether he meant to
or not, they are part of an overarching conceptual structure. 

After all, what is or was the United States but a union of states
brought together largely to face off a threat to their mutual 
interests from outside. 

The states that came together did not come together to abandon
their independence as states completely, rather than came together
it seems to me, in a sort of contract. 

And even today there are tensions in the US about how much 
government should be centralised for whatever reason vs how
much it should be localised in the respective states, so that the
people can have the most amount of say possible in what effects
them directly.

Any United Nations of Bioshere 1 worth a damn in my book 
would leave as much as possible to the local "nations".  

So, if one could look at it with an engineering mindset, as if 
one had a blank sheet of paper, (which of course we don't because
the world is changing and we are in it), then perhaps only those
very few absolute necessities that must be of a global nature should
be of a global nature. 

But I digress. 

Back to rules of engagement.

What does a combat soldier do, when his or her fellow soldiers
or much harder superiors break the rules of engagement? It would
seem that to follow rules of engagement would be extremely
difficult if you were a private and your nco or commanding officer
was not following them. (It seems we have on this list quite a rich
base of practical experience in this area.) What do the lower ranks
do in such situations as superiors not following the rules of 
engagement?

Brett Paatsch