A little-understood feature of modern conflict is the impact of the so-called ‘rules of engagement’.

Basically, these rules lay down when it is and is not lawful to shoot at the enemy or otherwise act in self-defence. A version of them should be carried by each soldier on a handy card. This is important – how peacekeeping and other military missions work out often can depends on how a group of nervous young soldiers deal with an angry-looking crowd of locals. Even shooting in the air unless this is strictly necessary can prompt all sorts of escalations in tension very fast.

The only people who care about rules of engagement more than the Western forces abiding by them are the Enemy. The stricter the Western rules on engaging with enemy combatants (eg to reduce the risk of causing civilian casualties), the happier the enemy combatants will be.

Why? Simple.

If you think that Western forces will not shoot at you if you’re near civilians, stick near civilians and use them as human shields.

Net result?

Civilian casualties go down – success!

But enemy/insurgent/terrorist casulaties also go down, and Allied casualties go up. Hence Western prospects of defeating the enemy goes down – not so good.

Here’s a tricky one. What if local civilians ask you to take risks with civilian lives to help rid them of even more cruel local insurgents once and for all?

Then what?