Rules Of Engagement Argumentative Essay

Rules of Engagement Argumentative Essay The Rules of Engagement presents a very complex narrative about the decisions made by Marine Lieutenant, and then Colonel, Terry Childers regarding the use of lethal force against unarmed civilians in Yemen. He faces a court-martial for effectively murdering dozens of civilians in an attempt to eliminate snipers that kill at least three of his men on rooftops amidst a group of protestors on the ground. Rather than gain clear line of sight on the snipers who are engaging his men, Colonel Childers orders his men to fire upon and kill the unarmed civilians in the streets. The entire situation is highly disturbing but presents a question worth pursuing: was Colonel Childers justified to engage the crowd of civilians in order to eliminate the armed civilians firing upon and killing some of his men? I argue that he was not justified to order his men to open fire upon the crowd because of the principles of the law of war which govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict.
The first principle of the international law of armed conflict is military necessity. This principle essentially states that in order to apply lethal force to a target, that target must be a legitimate military objective. Engaging …show more content…
Distinction means that combatants must distinguish between combatants and civilians. Any use of lethal force must be primarily directed against combatants. Civilians casualties must be minimized through careful and pragmatic planning. In the movie, Colonel Childers clearly violates this principle. When he orders his men to “waste those motherfuckers”, he is grouping the enemy combatants and the civilians together as a single group of targets. His subordinates never get eyes on the position of the snipers relative to the crowd protesting in the street. We never actually see if the snipers are even killed by the Marines as they murder dozens of