Section V. "RAMP" -- AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING MODEL FOR IMPARTING ROE TO

SECTION V

"RAMP" -- AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING MODEL1
FOR IMPARTING ROE TO SOLDIERS

Individual and collective training are the key ingredients that build soldier confidence and unit cohesion. In training for contingencies (especially peace operations), commanders are asking soldiers, whose skills have been honed for warfighting, to temper their actions to conform to more restrictive ROE. This requires that soldiers receive scenario-driven training on a new individual task. Generally, when a unit is alerted for a peace operation, it adds ROE to its training program because it must operate under more restrictive applications of force. In essence, ROE training comes last. In fact, ROE training should be the vanguard of all other training. It should begin in basic training, and should involve training to an Army standard against a core set of ROE applicable to both combat and peace operations.

TRAINING MODEL CRITERIA

1. Establish Core/Baseline ROE in Advance. What soldiers need is a set of core, baseline rules that are applicable in both war and peace operations, and to which soldiers can train in advance to a predetermined standard. Baseline ROE should become second nature to a soldier. The texts of the rules should be the same vertically among units in a particular operational chain and horizontally across similarly staffed and equipped units. These rules, or principles, constitute the basic core ROE on which soldiers train to prepare them for a wide range of circumstances. Hence, baseline rules must be formulated "far enough in advance for soldiers to train with them."2 They can be modeled after "METT-T" to help soldiers remember them.3The commander retains the flexibility to issue specific guidance through a pre-established structure of alert conditions and by ensuring the staff has drafted ROE annexes for contingency plans that anticipate all of the tasks the unit might be called on to complete. In this way, the baseline ROE, on which leaders continuously train soldiers, may be built upon or supplemented for specific, unique missions -- rather than tailored to a mission as in the legislative model. Once established and trained, they can be practiced during FTX and CTC rotations. The following figure compares the characteristics of the training model with those of the legislative model for imparting ROE to soldiers.

Legislative Model	Training Model
External Rules	Internal Principles
Written Texts	Memory and Judgment
Many Rules	Fundamental Recall/Interpretive Process
Interpretive Skills	Practical Application
Advisors and Counselors	Personal Experience
Enforcement and Punishment	Training and Evaluation
Tailoring for Mission	Formatted Supplements
Leisurely Environment	Fog of War

Figure 1. Contrast of ROE Model Characteristics4

2. Develop Soldier Judgment by Internalizing Principles. In this training model, at the soldier level, ROE "consistof internalized principles rather than external, written texts. As a result of training, soldiers apply these principles by drawing on individual experience and judgment . . . Leaders . . . assist soldiers in acquiring the judgment necessary to apply the [baseline] principles across a wide variety of situations. Leaders . . . achieve this by simulating those situations and evaluating soldier responses against pre-established standards."5

3. For Rule Breakers, Emphasize Training rather than Criminal Prosecution. "Instances in which soldiers break the rules . . . become training tools . . . [T]he training model seeks conformity with ROE through internalization rather than criminal prosecution . . . [L]eaders stress repetitive practice to demanding standards more than zealous enforcement. . . ."6 Experience indicates that prosecuting soldiers for using "excessive force can frustrate the goal of fielding a land force infused with initiative as well as appropriate restraint."7 Soldiers are obligated to take action to protect themselves, their unit, and the mission; they must judge the level of force necessary to neutralize the threat -- while minimizing collateral damage. Training for ROE in contingency operations aims at balancing soldier initiative with measured response.

4. Supplement Existing Core/Baseline ROE. The "training model places less emphasis on 'tailoring' entirely new ROE for an upcoming contingency and more emphasis on supplementing an existing structure . . . that transmission and assured understanding of ROE . . . requires follow-through, rehearsals with situations to check understanding and compliance, and continuing brief-backs."8 A force conducting a contingency faces "a wide array of ROE. Such a force is better prepared if its leaders have continuously trained individual soldiers on baseline rules that are consistent with the JCS SROE. Commanders then issue specific ROE [for a contingency] by supplementing [the] standing rules [including the core ROE and the ten functional types of rules noted earlier] through established alert conditions and existing formats.'"9

5. Develop a Fundamental Thought Process for Soldiers. This methodology "give[s] the soldier a realistic chance of retrieving [the rules] from memory during stressful . . ."10 confrontations. "[N]o system of ROE will improve decisions on the use of force if it expects the soldier under stress to instantaneously consult, interpret, and deconflict a body of rules and orders given for the current operation. The training model rests on the understanding that stress impairs cognitive functioning . . . that soldiers seek familiar patterns and relate critical events to mental scripts on which they'v e come to rely from previous experience. Accordingly, the training model . . . feature[s] repetitive, scenario-based reinforcement of a [fundamental thought process for grasping or recalling significant concepts] containing only four rules, a size that fits within the working memory of the soldier. These four [baseline] rules . . . exclude the wartime ROE (WROE) maxim to shoot the enemy.' They . . . also exclude the peacetime boilerplate maxim to take all appropriate measures in self-defense'"11

"RAMP" RULES
OF THE TRAINING MODEL

Return fire with aimed fire. Return force with force. You always have the right to repel hostile acts with necessary force.

Anticipate attack. Use force first if, but only if, you see clear indicators of hostile intent.

Measure the amount of force that you use, if time and circumstances permit. Use only the amount of force necessary to protect lives and accomplish the mission.

Protect with deadly force only human life and property designated by your commander. Stop short of deadly force when protecting other property.

Figure 2. Standing Rules of Force for the Individual Soldier 12

"All soldiers should train to an individual task that incorporates [baseline] principles on which the entire structure of land force ROE [is built]."13RAMP embodies a fundamental thought/recall process "that, once effectively assimilated by soldiers through training . . . [avoids] the disadvantages of the present legislative' approach to ROE."14 It also "incorporates a sensible approach to potentially complex legal issues."15 Whether handling captured prisoners or facing a potential terrorist, the soldier is prepared to discharge his duties without having to consider "the nuances of [his] legal status under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 . . . or how the status of forces agreement relates to the civil trespass laws of a nation hosting U.S. forces . . . [U]nder RAMP, soldier[s] . . . train to use force within the universal legal principles of necessity and proportionality; [allowing] . . . higher authorities to determine whether to supplement [the] basic [ROE/RAMP] principles"16 for a particular operation.

RAMP "are not abstract generalities . . . [T]hey permit soldiers to protect themselves [while conveying] more substance than the self-defense boilerplate."17They are more likely to be remembered and less likely to be misinterpreted. "The RAMP concept is concrete because it incorporates not only necessity and proportionality, but also Functional-Type Rules I, II, and III."18

RAMP RULE	SOURCE
RETURN FIRE	CORE RULE: NECESSITY Respond to Hostile Act
ANTICIPATE ATTACK	CORE RULE: NECESSITY Respond to Clear Hostile Intent
MEASURE YOUR FORCE	CORE RULE: PROPORTIONALITY Use Force of Magnitude, Intensity, Duration Measured to the Threat
PROTECT ONLY LIVES WITH DEADLY FORCE	FUNCTIONAL-TYPE RULES Type I: Hostility Criteria (CORE RULE: NECESSITY) Type II: Scale of Force (CORE RULE: PROPORTIONALITY) Type III: Protection of Property

Figure 3. Sources of RAMP Rules 19

FLEXIBILITY OF THE RAMP CONCEPT

RAMP Rules "provide the flexibility needed to permit [their] use across the range of potential armed conflict . . . [They] are the [baseline] settings that a commander may supplement or modify for a particular mission . . . [For example,] . . . a commander could supplement the 'A-Anticipate Attack' rule with additional hostility criteria"20if the commander felt it was warranted under existing METT-T conditions. "A senior commander might even declare a particular force hostile, and supplement the 'A' rule to permit preemptive attack on all forces fitting the given description . . . [A] commander might also supplement the 'M-Measure' rule to include a more or less graduated escalation of force, or, by supplementing the 'P-Protect' rule, order troops to defend certain mission[-]essential property with deadly force."21

No set of rules or procedures can "substitute for discretion or good judgment on the part of individuals."22No line can be clearly drawn that will apply to every situation in which the soldier must make a decision on the use of force (cross the Rubicon), except when he or she is actually fired at by an enemy or antagonist. "The first RAMP rule -- 'R-Return Fire with Aimed Fire'-- provides the soldier the only true line that can be drawn concerning authority and responsibility to use force."23

"Experience is the best trainer."24Experiential training in the RAMP rules challenges "the soldier to transfer the memorized rules to actual situations in the real world."25 Instead of giving "word pictures" for the soldier to interpret and apply in actual situations, as in the case of ROE cards, "RAMP rules provide standards with which leaders can supervise 'judgmental' training, analogous to that conducted in police academies."26The RAMP rules, when assimilated by the soldier through demanding, supervised experiential training, give the soldier a fundamental, standardized methodology with which to grasp and recall the core/baseline rules when they are needed in either combat or peace operations environments.

ROE CARDS

In the past, ROE cards have been issued to soldiers to give them a reference they can carry with them. Unfortunately, the rules on the ROE cards used in various contingencies differ, being tailored for the specific contingency. ROE cards have also tended to be legislative in nature, incorporating numerous rules as well as the boilerplate of self defense. Again, it is difficult for the soldier to quickly recall the various rules and determine which apply to the immediate situation. The caution for commanders is that ROE cards are no substitute for training.

With the RAMP concept, the four baseline rules standardize the ROE that the soldier needs in any environment. Through intensive training to a predetermined standard, the baseline RAMP rules are internalized by the soldier so that he or she does not have to "consult, interpret, and deconflict a body of [detailed] rules . . ."27tailored for the specific contingency. Once internalized, the RAMP rules guide soldier behavior in either combat or peace operations -- while giving the soldier confidence that he or she can accomplish the mission and survive within the rules.

It is essential that the RAMP rules be internalized by the soldier. However, if a senior commander feels it is necessary to provide ROE cards to soldiers, the cards should reflect the four baseline rules of the RAMP approach to the rules of engagement.

______________
NOTES

1Major Mark S. Martins, "Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering," Military Law Review, Volume 143 (Winter 1994), pp. 82-92.

2Ibid., p. 82.

3Ibid., p. 73.

4Adapted from Martins' figure, p. 83.

5Major Mark S. Martins, "Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering," Military Law Review, Volume 143 (Winter 1994), p. 83.

6Ibid., p. 84.

7Ibid., p. 84.

8Ibid., p. 84.

9Ibid., p. 84.

10Ibid., p. 84.

11Ibid., p. 85.

12Ibid., p. 86.

13Ibid., p. 86.

14Ibid., p. 86.

15Ibid., p. 87.

16Ibid., p. 88.

17Ibid., p. 88.

18Ibid., p. 88.

19Adapted from Martins' figure, p. 89.

20Major Mark S. Martins, "Rules of Engagement for Land Forces; A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering," Military Law Review, Volume 143 (Winter 1994), p. 88.

21Ibid., p. 88.

22Ibid., p. 89.

23Ibid., pp. 88-89.

24Ibid., p. 91.

25Ibid., p. 91.

26Ibid., p. 90.

27Ibid., p. 85.

Section IV: The Current "Legislative" Model for Applying ROE

Section VI: ROE Alert Conditions (ROECONs) for Standardizing Ramp Rules

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Military

SECTION V

"RAMP" -- AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING MODEL1 FOR IMPARTING ROE TO SOLDIERS

"RAMP" -- AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING MODEL1
FOR IMPARTING ROE TO SOLDIERS