Section VI. "ROE ALERT CONDITIONS (ROECONs) FOR STANDARDIZING RAMP RULES: ROE TRAINING

SECTION VI

"ROE ALERT CONDITIONS (ROECONs)1FOR
STANDARDIZING RAMP RULES

"Ground units need a system of ROECONs to supplement RAMP because recent history has shown that the diverse and complex operations of a combined arms team may compel commanders to use any or all of the ten functional types of ROE in addition to the core rules."2 There is an opportunity here to standardize ROE within a division, if the division incorporates a system of ROE alert conditions (and the RAMP concept) into its tactical standing operating procedures (TACSOP). Appendix D, A "Straw Man" Annex for a Division Tactical SOP, is a draft of such a system, suitable for the TACSOP of a light infantry division. Mechanized and armored divisions could draft similar systems suitable for their distinctive armament and tactics. "The ROECONs mesh with and supplement the individual soldier's RAMP rules, eliminating the inconsistent guidance and interpretive difficulties that plague the legislative approach to imparting ROE."3

"By design, RAMP embodies only the core rules plus Functional Type Rules I, II, and III"4 of the ten listed previously. ROECONs "permit commanders to control operations with Functional Type Rules IV, V, VI, and VII, while also establishing a format that enables advance training and rapid dissemination. A system of ROECONs implements the idea behind Functional Type Rule IV: Notify forces to assume a level of readiness for attack based on the degree of threat."5

The ROECONs (GREEN, AMBER, RED) "differ from the five terrorist threat conditions (THREATCONs) specified in The Army Combatting Terrorism Program,. . . [in that, while the terrorist] THREATCONs prescribe measures for all Amy personnel and family members connected with U.S. installations or facilities, . . . [ROECONs] prescribe measures for units and soldiers during the conduct of operations in a tactical or training setting."6 ROECONs also "differ from the three weapons control statuses applicable to air defense assets. Rather than merely announcing a posture for resolving doubts over whether to engage approaching aircraft, ROECONs dictate measures of alertness for an entire division task force."7

"Unless otherwise stated in the division TACSOP, ROECONs -- and the soldiers' RAMP rules imbedded in them -- take priority over inconsistent provisions in other regulations or manuals. For instance, during tactical operations or even local training exercises, the ROECONs displace provisions in the Army regulation pertaining to the carrying of firearms and the use of force in law enforcement duties. In tactical operations, ROECONs and RAMP similarly displace inconsistent provisions [of the legislative model] governing the application of force."8

Establishing a common system of ROECONs at the division level standardizes ROE and RAMP within the division. However, "nothing sacred dies if distinct ROECONs are [established] and . . . exercised by battalions [or] brigades . . . The division is [however] the largest Army organization that trains and fights as a team. It is [also] the smallest Army organization that includes an attorney dedicated to international [and operational] law matters. Additionally, division commanders are responsible for evaluating battalions, the tactical units around which the Army traditionally has oriented training management. Accordingly, successive evaluations of battalions using the same ROECONs provides a division staff with the practical applications necessary to refine the ROECONs into a working system."9

_______________
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. 92-94.

2Ibid., p. 92.

3Ibid., p. 92.

4Ibid., p .92.

5Ibid., pp. 92-93.

6Ibid., p. 93.

7Ibid., p. 93.

8Ibid., pp. 93-94.

9Ibid., p. 94.