What do special instructions bring to the rules of engagement? Chaos or clarity.

During the evening of 17 April 2002 near Kandahar, Afghanistan, soldiers from Alpha Company, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, were engaged in night live-fire training south of Kandahar at Tarnak Farms Range. While the Canadian soldiers were training, two U.S. F16 fighter aircraft were returning from a mission over Afghanistan. As they passed south of Kandahar, the flight lead noticed what he described as fireworks coming from an area a few miles south of Kandahar. Perceiving this as surface-to-air fire (SAFIRE) directed at them, the flight asked permission from an Airborne Warning and Control System (A WACS) aircraft to obtain the coordinates of the site. While attempting to get the coordinates, the wingman requested permission to fire on the location with his 20mm cannon. A WACS told him to standby and later requested additional information on the SAFIRE along with directing him to hold fire. The wingman gave the information and immediately declared that he was "rolling in in self-defense." He then released a 500 pound laser-guided bomb that impacted on a Canadian firing position at the Tarnak Farms Range. Four Canadians were killed and eight wounded. All the wounded soldiers were immediately evacuated from the area for medical treatment. When the two F-16s landed, they were told they had released a bomb" on friendly forces. (2)

"This incident mark(ed) the third time that U.S. forces had been involved in friendly fire accidents during the conflict in Afghanistan." (3) Another cause for concern was that this friendly fire fatality refreshed memories of another tragedy that happened on 14 April 1994, during Operation PROVIDE COMFORT. "On that date, two United States Air Force F-15 fighter aircraft shot down two United States Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters in the skies over northern Iraq. (4) Why were Coalition forces in Afghanistan in the first place? In the wake of the accident, why are Coalition forces still today conducting military operations?

 
   On 11 September 2001, terrorists trained by the al-Qaeda 
   organization hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing them 
   into the two World Trade Center towers in New York City, the 
   Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. On 
   6 October 2001, the United States and several coalition partners 
   launched Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), a military 
   campaign designed to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network's 
   main base of support in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime that 
   had provided both a safe haven and substantial material support 
   to al-Qaeda. (5) 

On 17 September 2002, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released to the public. The purpose was to reinforce the commitment and priorities of our nation as defined by our nation's leadership.

 
   Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and 
   fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, 
   the task has changed dramatically.... Terrorists are organized 
   to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern 
   technologies against us. To defeat this threat we must make use 
   of every tool in our arsenal-military power ... America will help 
   nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And 
   America will hold to account nations that are compromised by 
   terror, including those who harbor terrorists-because the allies 
   of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and 
   countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorist to 
   develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them 
   sanctuary at every turn. (6) 

America, before this articulation of our national objectives, was employing this policy in the international armed conflict appropriately named Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan. This conflict was being prosecuted through a multinational effort led by America and several coalition palmers making it a combined operation. (7) With this combined operation, came the increase of America military operational activities and the potential for misfortune which was the case on 17 April 2002. On 7 June 2002, a Coalition Investigation Board (CIB) consisting of U.S. and Canadian personnel released their findings about the incident. (8)

 
   The Coalition Investigation Board found by clear and 
   convincing evidence that the cause of the friendly fire incident 
   on 17 April 2002 was the failure of [Major Harry Schmidt], the 
   170th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron Weapons Officer and the 
   incident flight wingman, to exercise appropriate flight 
   discipline. This resulted in a violation of the rules of 
   engagement and the inappropriate use of lethal force. Under the 
   circumstances, Major [Harry Schmidt] acted with reckless 
   disregard for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, 
   thereby endangering friendly forces in the Kandahar area. (9) 
 
   The Board also found by clear and convincing evidence that an 
   additional cause of the incident was the failure of [Major 
   William Umbach], the 170th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron 
   Commander and the incident flight lead, to exercise appropriate 
   in-flight leadership. This resulted in his wingman's violation of 
   the rules of engagement and inappropriate use of lethal force. 
   Under the circumstances, Major [William Umbach] acted with 
   reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences of his 
   actions, thereby endangering friendly forces in the Kandahar 
   area. (10) 

The CIB cited other substantial contributing factors and other finding of significance. (11) This friendly fire incident, referred to as Tarnak Farms, has proceeded to another forum based on the ripple effect of the CIB findings. The unit commander preferred charges against the two pilots consisting of involuntary manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty. (12) On 13 January 2003, an Article 32 hearing was convened to determine whether the pilots should be court-martialed for the mistaken bombing. As of the date of this study, the investigating officer has not completed the Article 32 report.

However, the question that Tarnak Farms poses is whether the pilot had the authority in self-defense to act in the way he did? (13) The pilots' claimed they were defending themselves against what they thought was hostile ground fire. (14) This defense embraces the concept that they were adhering to the rules of engagement (ROE). (15) This argument appears to be history repeating itself in 2002. During 1994, "the Blackhawk helicopters shoot down resulted in an accident report asserting that the pilots who fired the two missiles were acting in accordance with the rules of engagement." (16) Conclusively at the CIB stage of Tarnak Farms, the findings did not agree that the flight wingman properly exercised the right to self-defense. (17) The crux of these findings was the failure of the pilot to exercise appropriate flight discipline. A key factor in reaching this conclusion was analyzing the pilot's actions in relations to the special instructions (SPINS). (18) In contrast, to the pilots' claim that they took appropriate actions in self-defense in accordance with the standing rules of engagement (SROE), the CIB concluded noncompliance with OEF ROE by determining the pilots failed to leave the immediate threat area as mandated by the OEF SPINS. (19) If the arguments for compliance or noncompliance are both true, then was the accident the result of a "ROE-SPINS disconnect?" (20)

In actuality, there is no ROE-SPINS disconnect. During military operations involving air assets the JFACC has the authority through SPINS to further restrict ROE as promulgated by the JFC. SPINS are a primary measure by which the JFACC controls air operations through campaign strategy, operational constraints and tactical procedures. SPINS have several sections which provide in detail how ROE will be applied in mission execution. Therefore, they are just as binding on the pilots as ROE issued by operations orders (OPORD) from the combatant commander; and for a pilot to use force appropriately, he must comply with the SPINS and ROE.

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the "War on Terrorism" has been advocated by President George W. Bush, United States armed forces have been engaged in coalition operations amounting to war. The effectiveness of these military operations will be driven by integrated joint operations, communications and interoperability. (21) Additionally, new challenges will have to be identified and need to be addressed as we fight.

This article will focus on ROE and SPINS in joint/combined/coalition air operations, using the Tarnak Farms incident of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM as a case study. (22) Specifically, it will focus on whether an unfortunate result was generated by directives and guidance promulgated in the ROE and SPINS. Additionally, it will explore and examine if there existed a conflict between the ROE and SPINS impacting self-defense. It will identify and examine the process of the creation of these documents. Since air operation ROE and SPINS are drafted and coordinated at a Joint Air Operations Center (JAOC) this article will also examine the JAOC's impact on these documents as well as the joint air operations process. With the CIB findings and the referral of charges, the Air Force's course of actions asserted and signaled that the pilots violated the OEF ROE. However, the pilots contend that they acted in self-defense in accordance with SROE. If plausible, then the ROE and SPINS may have been in conflict.

To set the background for the analysis, this article will first address ROE for armed conflicts, identify two types of ROE and their interaction. Secondly, it will describe the JAOC and how ROE from the strategic level is transformed into strategy, constraints and procedures for application at the tactical level. Thirdly, it will explain the existence of SPINS in an air operation. Within this framework, it will analyze how ROE and SPINS interconnect to be viewed as important documents for mission planning and execution. Finally, it will explore whether there exists a conflict between ROE and SPINS.

II. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

In order to identify whether some hostile action allows an affirmative response one has to know the triggering mechanism. ROE provides that guidance. In a situation where the elements for potential armed conflict exist, ROE is a tool to regulate the use of force. U.S. forces receive their directions from the President through their chain of command in the form of ROE. The legal factors which serve as a foundation for ROE, that is, customary and conventional law principles regarding the right of self-defense and the laws of war, are varied and complex. (23)

Although ROE can be complex, a workable framework for understanding it can be attained by dissecting it by purposes. ROE represents the intersection of political, military, and legal purposes. (24) The purposes all work together to influence the drafting of ROE in every military operation. "Thus, many factors influence an operation's [ROE], including national command policy, mission, operational environment, commander's intent, and international law." (25) Practically, ROE are the commander's rules for the use of force, specifying the circumstances and limitations in which forces may engage the enemy. (26) The rules may reflect the will of the government and commanders, but military members must adhere to the rules in order to carry out the mission.

Forces operating in accordance with applicable ROE, conduct warfare in compliance with international laws and fight within restraints and constraints specified by superior commanders. Objectives are justified by military necessity and attained through appropriate and disciplined use of force. ROE always recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. Properly developed ROE are clear and tailored to the situation. In a nutshell, ROE delineate what can be attacked, how it can be attacked, and whose permission yoga need to attack it. (27)

III. TYPES OF RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Since armed conflicts vary and are driven by particular circumstances so will ROE. One way to categorize ROE is by the scale of the conflict. Thus, when a conflict is initiated then the SROE is in place for U.S. forces to look to as a source of guidance. If a conflict intensifies the ROE adapts to the crisis. This flexible ROE can be labeled Peacetime to Combat Operation ROE. The development of ROE in the previous categories would be applicable to all military services in the overall planning stage of a conflict. However, when the focus shifts to operational capabilities each military service normally has developed campaign ROE to fit their mission. Consequently, each type of ROE distinctively has an impact on the military actions of U.S. forces.

A. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) have been termed 'the tether between the NCA and the soldier.'" (28) This statement has merit because the SROE are meant to be real-time guidance from our national leaders to the military member. The U.S. SROE are the basic ROE documents for all U.S. forces during military attacks on the U.S. and during all military operations, contingencies, and terrorist attacks outside the territory of the U.S. (29) On 15 January 2000, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) issued an updated version of the SROE. (30) The instructions cover the continuum of conflict from peacetime to military operations other than war (MOOTW) to armed conflicts. Based on these established instructions, every military member is trained to adhere to these rules unless new ROE are promulgated from competent military authority. If the mission changes the SROE "can be easily and quickly amended or clarified to meet mission-specific requirements." (31) However, some SROE fundamental principles remain constant such as the inherent right to self-defense. (32) Therefore, SROE are the foundation for the use of force by a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

B. Campaign Rules of Engagement

The starting point for all ROE should be the SROE. As a crisis forms which may require military action, staffs at the strategic level evaluate and coordinate how the ROE fits into the mission. Focusing on aerospace operations,"[t]he development of air campaign ROE is a process that must begin early in the Crisis Action Phase of any potential contingency." (33) "During the Crisis Action Phase, the ROE Cell at the strategic level will coordinate and develop ROE for the mobilization phase and force-on-force phase of the air campaign." (34) Additionally, in this phase the appropriate authorities will review allies' and other components' objectives and strategies to develop applicable ROE. (35) Eventually, this upper echelon of guidance will flow down to the next level of planning. However, with all service military planners,

 
   [t]he challenge is to balance competing interests in the 
   formation of ROE. ROE that are too constrained will prevent 
   the warfighter from getting the job done. ROE that are too 
   broad could allow military operations which may be …