Politically Correct Rules of Engagement Endanger Troops

BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 3 months ago

Note: This article has been updated and expanded with The NCOs Speak on Rules of Engagement.

In his article Spinning Haditha, Marine W. Thomas Smith made the following sad but prophetic observation:

… every student of military science understands the ugly nature of insurgencies; where insurgents are un-uniformed, unconventional fighters who move freely throughout the community during the day, and become bushwhackers at night. They routinely use women and children as human shields, and often coerce the latter into the service of operating guerrillas.

This is particularly effective against U.S. forces, because the enemy knows that no matter how much stress they may be under, American soldiers will go to great lengths to avoid killing women and children; and even hesitate (at great risk to themselves) when they see women and children shooting at them.

I followed on to predict that charges of civilian casualties and inappropriate rules of engagement would become a staple of enemy propaganda, that rules of engagement would be modified, and that U.S. troops would become increasingly hesitant to fire on the enemy. Every one of these predictions has come true.

As discussed in Newsweek’s expose on Marine Captain Rob Secher, Captain Secher wrote home that “any time an American fires a weapon there has to be an investigation into why there was an escalation of force.”

In my article Unleash the Snipers!, I noted that Marines in Ramadi have noted the hindrance the rules of engagement have become to their missison:

The military has also tightened rules of engagement as the war has progressed, toughening the requirements before a sniper may shoot an Iraqi. Potential targets must be engaged in a hostile act, or show clear hostile intent.

The marines say insurgents know the rules, and now rarely carry weapons in the open. Instead, they pose as civilians and keep their weapons concealed in cars or buildings until just before they need them. Later, when they are done shooting, they put them swiftly out of sight and mingle with civilians.

In my article Racoon Hunting and the Battle for Anbar, I noted that Marines from Fallujah report that:

“A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back,

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

The problem is that these men and women are expected to perform warfighting duties with a police officer’s ROE. Escalation of force, indeed. In war, there is no escalation of force. There is a complete destruction of those opposing the accomplishment of the assigned mission, in this case, an Iraq free of terrorists and murderers. It is not possible to fight a war without hurting people’s feelings. The first rule of war is that people die; sad but true. And as long as our troops are stuck with these ROE, violations of which are exploited by the enemy, they will contiune to die. We need to put some of these politicians in uniform and make them walk patrols. Wanna bet things would change then?


Well what do you know. There really are chickenhawks and they’re all in the Pentagon. What a surprise.

Here’s a tip. If you cannot give your soldiers a true combat ROE then yes, by all means, pull them out. They don’t belong there and it is immoral to put them in harms way.

It may not be Vietnam II but it sure is starting to look like Beirut redux.

Mike Rentner
There are a lot of incorrect assumptions being made here, echoing the opinions which are being perpetrated by those in legal difficulties. Unlike most people who blather on the internet about the rules of engagement in Iraq, I actually know what they were, at least a year ago. They are for the most part, and rightly so, classified. So if you aren’t there, you can’t really know what they are. There are a lot of rules, but the individual Marine or soldier can understand how they impact his job fairly easily. Details might change from time to time, but I have never seen anyone second guessed who made a reasonable interpretation of the rule, especially if their decision was required in an immediate situation. One source of confusion in the general public, like I said, is coming from people accused of crimes, most notably the Marines of 3/1 who killed those families in Haditha. I was in Haditha with the battalion that was there before 3/1 and I know the area and the rules they operated under well. If you only go by the statements the accused Marines themselves have been trumpeting to the press, it would be very easy… Read more »
Chuck Pelto

TO: Herschel Smith
RE: Not So Much Rules of Engagement

Rather, the problem is we are not paying heed to lessons of the past.

Specifically, the way the Brits put down the Communist insurgency in Malaysia during the 50s.

Any town or village where they were having ‘trouble’ was evacuated.

All citizens, with whatever they could carry, were moved to a new site where they built a new town with a good security fence around it.

Only things that were inspected could enter or leave the new town.

The old town was searched and, I would think, razed.

Evidence of being part of the insurgency, e.g., materials found in the old town, materials being smuggled into or out of the new town, was used to prosecute and punish those caught.

This system WORKED.

While we don’t do it in Iraq, the insurgency will continue to florish.


P.S. Then there is the Pershing Technique.

I see it as an adjunct to the system described above. Something to do with punishing the insurgents and their supporters who are caught.

Goodbye Natalie

Though I appreciate Mike Rentner’s comments from above about two sides of the argument, the tone of his comment has the real smell of John Kerry elitism.

Mike, since when was it a requirement to have a PHD to be a good shot? Anyone who has been to any professional schooling or college knows how overrated the classroom and field exercises are in comparison to the experience of real life situations.

The most prudent approach to give our military concerning rules of engagement must be to provide a wide latitude of discretion and a trust that these young men are worthy of an assumption of not guilty when accused by an enemy, or worse, our “illustrious” press. I don’t find anyone willing to risk their life for the sake of others the dregs of society.

When I read Mike’s comment, he leads me to believe that we’ve got leagues of blood thirsty killers on the march through the streets of Baghdad. What good will it do to double our force if they are handcuffed but provide more ducks on the pond?


[…] Captain’s Journal | Politically Correct Rules of Engagement Endanger Troops […]

Mike Rentner
Goodbye Natalie missed the whole point. And I dare her to compare me to John Kerry to my face. It’s funny how when people learn something contrary to what they want to learn, they toss out irrelevent insults like comparing the messenger of that truth to John Kerry. Don’t shoot the messenger. My point was that our Marines and soldiers DO have the ability to understand and obey the ROE easily, and they are supported when they do so, even if they fail but tried reeasonably to conform to them. Except in the very willful violations of the ROE that get into the news, I don’t know of anyone that has been prosecuted for using deadly force. My point was that there are bad apples in all organizations. We should not over-react to the bad apples who claim that the reason for their crimes is that they are being persecuted by restrictive ROE. When we find these bad apples, we must disassociate ourselves from their actions and punish them accordingly. It is not appropriate to accept their behavior and change the rules to accommodate their crimes. Goodbye Natalies should realize that our military is by and large very professional. It… Read more »
John Davies

I was thinking about this yesterday when the Senators were grilling Robert Gates about the Powell Doctrine.

They kept using the overwhelming force part to try to get him to criticize the President on troop levels.

I was steaming thinking of how they would have complained if the ROE had been loosened enough that we were using honest-to-god overwhelming force.

We don’t have the guts for it. Yet.


We Need New Rules of Engagement…

The Captain (not Captain Ed) explains why political correctness is responsible for the prolonged difficulty we’ve had in winning Iraq….

The Coffeespy » ROE: Rules of Endangerment

[…] The Captain’s Journal put up a piece near and dear to my heart this morning concerning the Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Iraq: Consider the psychology of the warrior.  Even if not a single Soldier or Marine had died as a result of hesitation due to ROE (that is, even if this danger is only potential and has not become actualized), the psychology of fear has set in.  Not fear of the enemy, but fear of firing a weapon.  This fear can cause hesitation, and even the enemy knows the U.S. ROE and can and has taken advantage of them.  Hence, there is increased danger for our troops, and they know it. […]

Herschel Smith

Mike Renter,

Let’s allow others have the podium for a while. Contact me off-line please at the e-mail address given on my web site. In the mean time and until we talk, all other comments made by you will be deleted.

Don Beier

I have long been urging President Bush (thru emails) and my congressman to let these kids FIGHT TO WIN.
I haven’t received any replies from Mr. Bush :>)
They have been trained to fight and kill the enemy, NOT to be urban cops using “restraint”. Either let them do what they are trained to do, or pull them out. Just one man’s opinion. Don


What we have are democrats who are traitors, a media that is actually part of the enemy propoganda machine, and gutless republicans afraid of being called bad names.

Bush needs to stand up and point out how democrats and the media cost livesin Viet Nam, and hwo they are trying to do the same here. But there seem to be no balls in the Bush.

Chuck Pelto
TO: All RE: Rules of Engagement vs. Actual Strategy ROEs are necessary. However, they are not the be-all-and-end-all of how to conduct a winning war effort. We need a strategy that will: [1] Allow our commanders in the field to engage the enemy effectively. [2] Eliminate the enemy’s logistical and operational bases of operation. ROE will do neither. ROE is just what we tell the troops in the field how to engage the enemy….if they can identify them. The Brit approach in Malaysia is the only proven effective modern winning war strategy against this sort of situation. [Note: The Romans had an approach, but it was tantamount to genocide.] The Brit approach is not genocide. It is not ‘ethnic cleansing’. It’s brutal. But it is effective. Once the people realize that harboring the insurgents in their community results in the destruction of their property and their subsequent displacement to something resembling an internment camp, there will be fewer communities that harbor the insurgents. We’ve seen this played out in Israel’s approach to dealing with homes that harbor tunneling operations. The house is destroyed. Other homeowners think twice before allowing their house to become a target for destruction. In summation, it’s… Read more »
Jay Reding.com - Are We Fighting With One Hand Tied Behind Our Backs?

[…] The Captain’s Journal has an interesting piece on how politically-correct rules of engagement are hampering our troops in Iraq. The terrorists in Iraq know that our troops are held to the highest standard — so they are perfectly willing to use women and children as human shields, get kids to shoot at our troops, and other barbarous techniques to put our soldiers in harms way, knowing that they’ll be reticent to shoot back. The analysis given is important: Consider the psychology of the warrior. Even if not a single Soldier or Marine had died as a result of hesitation due to ROE (that is, even if this danger is only potential and has not become actualized), the psychology of fear has set in. Not fear of the enemy, but fear of firing a weapon. This fear can cause hesitation, and even the enemy knows the U.S. ROE and can and has taken advantage of them. Hence, there is increased danger for our troops, and they know it. […]

Herschel Smith


Proper thought-boundaries are needed here. Think “strict boundary conditions,” and read carefully. No one said that proper ROE will end the insurgency. You answered an objection that no one raised. With all due respect. Your comment was interesting, but the post was about potential endangerment to the troops, not ending the insurgency. I have other posts that touch on this, and they are probably poor compared to the thinking on the ground in Iraq. The military on the ground can come up with the strategy to end the insurgency. My post was about endangerment of the troops.


We need to win this war. But this is exactley why I did’nt want us to go in. I feel the war was justified, but I knew that this would happen. With our press, everyone was as worried about how they look back home. I would do the same thing. But we can’t win wars against an enemy of any size until we get over this. That’s why Clinton shot cruise missiles, and no soldiers to fight this enemy. And most of us agreed at the time.

Jeff Carlson


gotta call BS on your “I was in Haditha with the battalion that was there before 3/1 and I know the area and the rules they operated under well.” A rank, actual unit, your position and real dates would have lent some credibility to your claim. Since you did’nt provide any of those I have to assume you made it up to acquire some sort of moral authority to talk about the Marines there. A big lie in other words.

Herschel Smith

Let’s all be courteous … please!

Lou Gots

ROE’s infringing the individual right of self-defense may be unlawful orders. If I couldn’t get an instruction from the the Military Judge to that effect, I could figure out a way to argue it. If the ROE were framed in such a way as to forbid a combatant from shooting someone who was shooting at him, and the facts of the case fit that scenario, a not guilty verdict from a Court-Martial is a real possibility.

The underlying problem here is the “Protocol I” issue. In 1977, many countries, but not the U.S., adopted a change to the international law of armed conflict to extend privileges of lawful belligerance to those fighing “occupation” even if the fighters were not bearing arms openly or not wearing an uniform or equivalent badge of identification. In operation, this means those fighting Israel, and now, the U.S..

We have not ratified Geneva Convention Protocol I, but right now we are fighting as though we had. Because of this ambiguity, our statesmen, commanders and Staff Judge Advocates, the advisors of those commanders, are pussy-footing around the issue, with the results described above. and

Mike Rentner


Third Battalion, Twenty-fifth Marines. S-6 officer.
Deployed to Hit-Haditha corridor of Al Anbar Province Iraq from Feb 18, 2005 to October 1, 2005.

Mike Rentner
Major, USMCR

George T Talbot

Same problems in the Army also. Have been on a patrol where a bomb was throw at one of our vehicles. The turret gunner did not fire on the vehicle from which the bomb was thrown, despite having a clear shot at them while they drove away. The reason? Possible punishment under the UCMJ. But who could really blame the soldier who might be fined, demoted or otherwise punished. Yes, he should have fired and I place the blame for this sort of inaction/fear squarely upon the shoulders of the command. How can we fight a war like this?

Herschel Smith


Your comment is interesting, and it significantly adds to the discussion. I would like to mine what you know about this subject. If you are so disposed, please contact me off-line at the e-mail given on the web site. Thanks!

George T Talbot

Re #22

George T Talbot
Major, USA Medical Corps
210 BSB in Afghanistan in 2003
21-15 FAR in Iraq 2004-2005

Barry 0351

Number one rule of engagment.
1. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Soldier Hard!
Why does this not surprise me. Published on the subject 20 years ago. Accession Number : ADA184917 Title : Rules of Engagement: What is the Relationship Between Rules of Engagement and the Design of Operations Corporate Author : ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES Personal Author(s) : Burton, Michael A. Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA184917 Check NTIS Availability… Report Date : 04 MAY 1987 Pagination or Media Count : 39 Abstract : This paper initially explains the role Rules of Engagement (ROEs) play in the use of military force as a political instrument. ROEs are then characterized into three categories using theory and a historical overview of recent armed conflicts. From this analysis, the relationship of ROEs and the design of operations are investigated. This study concludes that ROEs impact on the design of operations in three significant ways. First, ROEs introduce a new equation of uncertainty into operations. Second, the operational commander must address the unusual degree of risk associated with limiting the use of force in relation to the enemy. Finally, limitations on the use of force can radically change the capabilities of the friendly force. The operational commander… Read more »
Chuck Pelto

TO: Herschel Smith
RE: Boundaries

“Proper thought-boundaries are needed here. Think “strict boundary conditions,

Herschel Smith


Glenn has a right to write anything he wants. It is his web site.

Unless you are omniscient, you do not know whether this is a strategic issue (which wasn’t the point of the original post anyway).

I don’t know what a “bun fight” is, as I have never engaged in one. Let’s keep the comments on a high level, and avoid highjacking the comment thread.



I was with the 101st in Iraq(the first time) and have several friends there now. I was never under the impression that the ROE was classified. Please tell me, as one major to another, where I could find that.

And Lou Gots, soldiers might be hesitant to use some force at times in a confusing situation, but all soldiers are told that if they are being shot at, the use of deadly force against the attacker is ALWAYS justified, regardless of ROE. ROE never precludes the right of a soldier to defend himself, period.


My understanding is that there is a school of thought that in counterinsurgencies, as opposed to “regular” warfare, the goal is to use the minimal firepower necessary because killing enemy operators is not the primary objective. The enemy center of gravity is supposed to be its support/acquiescence from the population, and the counterinsurgent center of gravity is the government/occupying authority’s political legitimacy. So if you think of Type I and Type II error, the theory is that you’re better off erring a little bit more on the side of not shooting and letting a bad guy get away and/or taking a casualty than you are of erring a little bit and shooting an uninvolved civilian.

I’m not sure this theory is correct, or if correct appropriate to the Iraq context, but if that is indeed our strategy then it would be military incompetence not to have rules of engagement that reflect it. He who wills the end wills the means.

Mike Rentner


How would you find out that the ROE are classified? By the big words “SECRET” on the top and bottom of every copy of them printed by your fellow army brethren from CentCom and the other boys in Baghdad where they originate in some form or another. You can find them on SIPRNET. And if you don’t know what SIPR is, then I’m not going to help you any further!

Locally made copies of the ROE often don’t include those words, but that doesn’t change their classification. A lot of things are loosey goosey over there because there’s a war going on, but the ROE are classified, as they should be. There’s no need to tell the enemy what we will do or not do in different situations. I’d prefer that it remain as surprising as possible to them.

Herschel Smith


Yes, I know all about COIN, and “winning the hearts and minds of the people,” and “Military Operations Other Than War,” and so on, and so forth. I have read the Small Wars Manual and the recently revised COIN field manual (draft version).

The best way to win the hearts of the people is to provide security. This may be done by killing the enemy.

Blogs of War » Politically Correct Rules of Engagement

[…] Herschel Smith continues his call to unlease the dogs: Consider the psychology of the warrior. Even if not a single Soldier or Marine had died as a result of hesitation due to ROE (that is, even if this danger is only potential and has not become actualized), the psychology of fear has set in. Not fear of the enemy, but fear of firing a weapon. This fear can cause hesitation, and even the enemy knows the U.S. ROE and can and has taken advantage of them. Hence, there is increased danger for our troops, and they know it. […]


Every time one of The Captain’s stories gets picked up Renter comes by and tells everyone that the subject matter is classified…so, yeah.

Rules of engagement in Iraq are not classified, and it’s silly to assert they are – at least not classified to any serious degree. I’ve read about ROE’s, heard about ROE’s from Marines and Soldiers on the ground in Iraq and those back from deployment as well as those waiting for deployment. I’ll reference a comment I made on another of The Captain’s posts:

“The point here is that the statistical kill ratio is unacceptable. The margin of ratios the Captain and Ernest worked up is absolutely sane and reasonable. They are also a product of pussified, political, bureaucratic “counter-insurgency operations



I have one of my ROE cards in front of me, the one I was issued prior to departure from home station. Why can’t I find the word “SECRET” anywhere?

I also asked both NCOs across the hall from me – one a vet of OIF from 2004-2005, and one a vet from Desert Storm – and none of us can ever recall ROE that was classified.

Also, how would you square this with soldiers receiving ROE cards who were never given secret clearance?

Mike Rentner
Russ, I’d say you had a pretty normal battalion that had a healthy sloppiness about nit noid administrative BS that are not worth worrying about when you’re being mortared every day. The ROE are on the order of 50 or maybe more pages, they are definitely classified, and for good reason. The bits put on the cards you’ve seen are likewise properly classified, but the absurdity of not sharing the info with people who need to know the info means that everyone makes handy little cards summarizing the ROE. The little bit that the average infantryman has to know is summarized as, “if you reasonably feel threatened, kill.” And then there are other escalation procedures that there is no need to share with anyone here. There are other rules for when offensive actions are permissable, etc. The ROE at the basic grunt level are pretty simple. The ROE for when to bomb a mosque or 3000 year old Ziggurat are more extensive. But if someone is using that 3000 year old Ziggurat to launch RPG’s at G.I. Joe, he has every right to shoot back, using proportionate force, to stop the threat, and the ROE support that. Proportionate force doesn’t… Read more »
Herschel Smith


I appreciate the clarification and further explanation. I have to disagree. I know your position since you and I have exchanged e-mail in the past few minutes. I don’t think that this is a “red herring.” There are at least two aspects to this little post: the concrete (actual ROE), and the psychology of the revised ROE, or their effect on the psyche of the warrior who is making split second decisions in COIN and MOUT, pressures that warriors from previous generations did not face.

Semper Fidelis, and pray for our troops.

“In all this discussion, no one has given a single instance of someone who was prosecuted for violating the ROE.” That’s not the point. The point is that soldiers are hestitating b/c they think they MIGHT get prosecuted. I speak from experience on this. Outside of Karbala, my company encountered a group of folks dressed in civilian clothes hauling a trailer full of weapons. We shouted for them to stop, and they reached for the weapons, including one 15 year old boy. We killed all six at the scene, but a truck driver(transportation soldier) who was nearby and didn’t even go near the bodies to inspect them the way my soldiers did, tried to report up the chain that my soldiers had “murdered” the boy. CID conducted a VERY thorough investigation. Although my guys were ultimately exonerated, it resulted in a lot of them hesitating the next time they encountered someone carrying a weapon our of fear of going through that again. Yes, the system usually works to clear folks. But aside from a few common sensical egregious examples, the soldier should be given the benefit of the doubt in combat. Even the threat of an investigation can hinder some.… Read more »
Herschel Smith


Sigh … finally.

Yes, yes. This is the point.

Finally, someone gets it.


Russ, you are right on.


The American people would still be behind this war if there was the sense that we were killing enough of the terrorists. These rules of engagement are infuriating.

Not being a soldier myself, it is difficult to think that I would be able to have any clear feeling of what that second or two of hesitation must feel like; when you have to weigh your possible future of being prosecuted for doing something wrong, against the possibility of not having a future because you didn’t pull the trigger. Horrifying. The real problem though is that there is no clear solution to the issue! There is a disconnect between the on-the-ground mission, and the political reality of trying to get the Iraqis to get their act together and stop killing each other. On the one hand, if we don’t start acting more aggressively, nothing will improve and in all likelihood the situation will continue to devolve. On the other, if we do act more aggressively, then we run the risk of coming off as butchers in the Muslim world, and uniting those who are currently fighting each other, against us. You may not think that second one would be such a big deal, but it is; the political and media victory is every bit as important as the military vic., and if it comes to the point where civilians… Read more »
Mike Rentner
Russ, But this is not a problem of the ROE. The ROE exonerated them. The ROE were fine. Perhaps that is the problem we’re dancing around, what some are calling ROE is not the ROE, but the fear of that people will be punished irrationally. The world is harsh. There are no simple answers. But what solution do you propose? Should we not have ROE that already support what your guys were doing? Should we just allow anyone to shoot anyone for any reason? I would say no. I think we need some guidelines to point us in the right direction on when to use force. That’s what the ROE are, that’s what they’ve done, and they’ve done it very effectively. When credible charges are made, investigations must be done. Many soldiers and Marines are fearful that they will be punished, even though every investigation I’m aware of had the result that when honest, reasonable actions are taken, no one gets punished. Even if we had “better” ROE, your scenario would not change. Even in the most incredibly lenient and liberal rules in using force, if some truck driver claimed that there was a murder, there would still be an… Read more »

It is possible that the email exchange between the two already occured, and he got a green light to continue…

just sayin’

Herschel Smith


To close out and complete this line of thought ;-) , it is a strange thing, you claim. With all due respect, I am very late as a blogger of the Iraq war. We are now more than 3.5 years into the war, and I have been blogging for around half a year. I cited only MSM reports, and that, reports Marines and Soldiers gave themselves. These Marines and Soldiers don’t know who I am, don’t care, have never read my blog, and never will.

To claim that it is “harping about ROE on the internet” that has caused anything … anything … to happen, is not only to give too much credit to my little blog, but it is directly contrary to the facts.

Simply to claim that the issue doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it so. I didn’t make this stuff up, and while you might disagree with the import of the alleged problem, not a single instance or report I cited is in dispute. The only difference we have here is one of analysis and interpretation.

Your analysis is different from mine. Fine. Let’s leave it at that.

Hey, Michael B, Maybe you should have read further up the post where Herschel acknowledged that he had talked to Mike via email. Implied from that was that he and Mike had talked and they had come to a new understanding that would allow for Mike to continue posting, since Herschel now understood more of his position. I take it from your posting that you, of course, are a member of the Armed Forces and therefore understand the nuances of what is being discussed by two professional military officers. That’s how you determined Mike was “winning.” Otherwise, you were talking without knowing context or perspective, and I know you wouldn’t have done something so inane. Mike, The problem I have is not with the ROE, but maybe better phrased as being with the way the investigations are carried out. My incident was during the combat phase of the operation and made by a single soldier who was 50-75 meters away, and had no corroboration with it. The very heavy handed way that CID conducted itself made me view them in an extremely unfavorable light. They made numerous other allegations during the interrogations, like my soldiers were shooting up dogs on… Read more »
Bear Creek Ledger » Iraq Study Surrender Group

[…] Politically Correct Rules of Engagement Endanger Troops […]


We did not bomb Al Sadr and 8000 of his murderous followers when they all met in that arena. We did not kill the taliban leadership more recently when they came to a funeral.


Here are two simple pieces of evidence, sufficient to condemn our current rules as being beneficial to the enemy.


I’ve joked for years that we should turn D.C. into a nuclear test site. The terrorists will probably do that for us, because our elites in the media, academia and politics are more interested in pleasing the EU and UN than in protecting our nation or winning the fights we get into.

We are going down the same road as the Romans.


What few people understand is that it is our Congress that establishes what our Rules of Engagement are for our Soldiers and Marines. That is the fundamentally the problem.

People who have never served in the line of fire are making the rules. If the Soldier or Marine breaks that rule and defends himself he may spend 20 years in a military penitentiary.

This is why they are afraid of pulling the trigger. They would rather die with honor than spend there life disgraced and dishonorably discharged.

Death before Dishonor


You are currently reading "Politically Correct Rules of Engagement Endanger Troops", entry #414 on The Captain's Journal.

This article is filed under the category(s) Iraq,Weapons and Tactics and was published December 6th, 2006 by Herschel Smith.

If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.

26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (677)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (31)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (26)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (88)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (49)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (53)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (7)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (23)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (130)
Department of Homeland Security (16)
Disaster Preparedness (3)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Donald Trump (1)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (7)
Featured (177)
Federal Firearms Laws (18)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (589)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (41)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (471)
Guns (1,086)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (54)
India (10)
Infantry (3)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (44)
Islamists (69)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (80)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (3)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (244)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
Media (31)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (24)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (4)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (4)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (15)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (21)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (2)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (218)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (33)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Pizzagate (21)
Police (241)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (317)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (114)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (74)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (29)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (174)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (24)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (18)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (2)
Survival (13)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (6)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (14)
TSA Ineptitude (11)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (14)
U.S. Sovereignty (17)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (42)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (212)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (18)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2017 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.