UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

SECTION I

THE DILEMMA: CROSSING THE RUBICON

The Rubicon is a river in northern Italy, 15 miles in length, flowing from the southern slopes of the Alps eastward to the Adriatic Sea. By crossing this boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy in 49 B.C. to march against Pompey, Julius Caesar committed himself to conquer or perish. Since then, use of the idiom ". . . crossing the Rubicon . . . ." has meant that a person is taking a decisive, irrevocable step.1

During small unit peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions, confrontations occur which demand instantaneous and decisive application of the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Actions taken to meet a threat should be measured and appropriate for the circumstances. Consider the following mission summary from U.S. peace enforcement operations in Somalia:

During a night reconnaissance on 15 Jan 93, a U.S. Army patrol became engaged in a fire fight with a group of Somali robbers. The engagement began at 2153 when the patrol made contact with bandits who were in the process of robbing a truck carrying Somali civilians. Two or three bandits opened fire on the Army patrol which returned fire and effectively suppressed the bandits' attack. The engagement resulted in six Somalis killed (including one confirmed bandit) and seven Somalis wounded.

Although innocent civilian casualties were high, it was unavoidable for several reasons. When the fire fight began, the patrol was unaware of the presence of civilians in the area. It was impossible for the patrol to instantly assess that a robbery of Somali civilians was in process. Poor light conditions and the short engagement range (30 meters) precluded instant identification of friend or foe (since Somali robbers and antagonists wore no distinguishable uniforms). On receiving fire from short-range, the patrol had to instantly return suppressive fire to defend itself. There were no U.S. casualties. The patrol's action was consistent with existing ROE.2

Applying deadly force may result in unnecessary human suffering or death to innocent bystanders. Collateral damage may be unavoidable, but may also discredit the military force and its country. On the other hand, taking no action, acting too late for the circumstances, or using too little force can result in friendly casualties, an unsuccessful mission, or even the destruction of the small force facing the immediate threat. The threat may be obscure or indistinct during periods of reduced visibility, compounding the decision process. Nonetheless, a split-second decision must be made as to whether any action is required and, if so, what degree of force should be applied to neutralize the threat, protect U.S. forces, and sustain the mission. The decision made and the action taken (or not taken) are tantamount to crossing the Rubicon. In that instant, it is a decisive, irrevocable step for the soldier individually, and the small unit collectively. As Secretary of State Daniel Webster put it in 1840, ". . . self-defense is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." 3_______________
NOTES

1Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition (1980), p. 1151.

2Mission Summary, Headquarters, U.S. Forces, Mogadishu, Somalia, 10 Feb 93.

3Major Mark S. Martins, "Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering," Military Law Review, Volume 143 (Winter 1994), p. 29.


Foreword
Section II: Defining the Rules of Engagement



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list