Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Some research help please . . .

I am quite intrigued by this quote in Elan Journo's recent op-ed The Real Disgrace: Washington's Battlefield "Ethics", but I seem to be unable to locate the original source.

Consider the waking nightmare of being a U.S. combat troop in Iraq: imagine that you are thrust into a battlefield--but purposely hamstrung by absurd restrictions. Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle--but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, "drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses" as you drive by--but you are not allowed to respond. [emphasis mine]
I'd like to read the study Journo references, but I can't seem to find it. In my research, I scanned the report here but wasn't able to locate any mention of a failure to retaliate to attacks with concrete blocks due to Rules of Engagement concerns. Does any RoR readers know if I missed the reference or if I am looking at the right report?

I'm intrigued because one would think that this style of attack would be a particularly excellent attack to retaliate against, if only because the people involved would be very close to our troops and presumably unarmed. I'd like to see just how the US's rules of engagement bar legitimate retaliation in such instances. So accordingly, I ask if anyone else has seen mention of such attacks and a failure of US forces to properly retaliate to post any links in the comments.


Mark said...


pp 13-14

Nicholas Provenzo said...