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

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Not really. Humans trained in modern military units are distinctively
> NOT like run of the mill persons on the street. No civilian
> organization I know of uses negative reinforcement so extensively or
> effectively. The military knows that war is very very messy and it has
> used the decades since WWII to scientifically figure out how to make it
> less so, make soldiers more reliable and more productive. The
> regimentation, conformity, gung ho sloganeering and extensive
> repetetive rote instruction of subordinates, along with very effective
> leadership training for unit leadership.

>                                                            It all 
> functions to make
> soldiers want to obey orders when they otherwise wouldnt, or even
> shouldn't.

So when they want to obey orders they shouldn't, what then, they
consider the rules of engagement?

> Soldiers are trained to do their jobs no matter how they feel about it.
> If that means shooting bad guys, they learn to do it without being
> repulsed. That also means learning to distinguish innocents from
> combatants, although IMHO the military doesn't do as much as it
> should.

I wonder what happens for instance if a low ranking soldier thinks that
they have been given an order to do something that breaks with the
rules of engagement, or the Geneva Conventions. What does a soldier
do when his/her superior is the one that is doing the encouraging or
is ordering to break from the rules of engagement?

Which is supposed to have precedence in a conflict, a direct order
from a superior, or the rules of engagement? I'd have though the
second.

Brett Paatsch