Your link doesn’t support the Constitution part?
What you are missing is that “rules of engagement” is what is used when there is not a “real” war. For example in the early days of the Vietnam war the US officially wasn’t iinvolved, so they made up a bunch of “rules” to provide a diplomatic fig leaf to make it possible to bomb Hanoi and not call it a war.
Without that fig leaf, what the pilots were doing could only be called a crime. Under international law you can’t just bomb people nilly-willy. There’s supposed to be consequences for shit like that.
That is where “rules of engagement” come from.
It was never about limiting what soldiers can do in real wars. It was about lying what they are doing outside of war.
Kinda, not really.
The context I was referring to was the speech itself, not the broader context.
But the broader context is not accurate. While the concept in the US goes back centuries, I can agree if you want to point to a US document called “Rules of Engagement” that it was post-Vietnam (1976). But it was to standardize what the military could do in given situations, not about lying about it.
Super generally, starting with Korean War it started to matter more how wars were fought than who won. The higher media coverage coupled with the politics of not getting bigger countries involved like USSR or China or not triggering a nuclear war mattered most. This led to politicians micromanaging what the military could do and not do in a war. For example, pilots in the air needing WH approval to bomb specific targets or soldiers not being able to shoot back in some circumstances without approval, etc etc. It was ad hoc and confusing.
This led to 1976 ROE which have been updated to modern ROE. Today they cover every war and non-war situation and always include a right of self defense.
Intentionally bombing civilians is illegal whether a ROE allows it or not. The lack of consequences is political, but it doesn’t mean there was no law against it.
Lying ~ bypassing congress, fighting a war without declaring one.
I see. That’s a good point.
Today, it’s best to think of the rules of engagement granularly down to an individual troop. The ROE will guide that soldier on how to identify an enemy (e.g., when they shoot at you; or, if they are wearing sneakers and not sandals, etc). How much force can be used and when (show of force/warning shots before firing at the enemy). They can be general or very specific. They all must comply with Geneva Conventions re: self-defense, positive identification, proportionality, etc. Think of ROE as an internal business policy, they dictate what to do/not do in specific situations for workers in that company, but the policies can never advocate the workers do anything illegal.
Separately, there are laws regarding when one nation can engage (go to war) against another nation. While there is overlap, these are not ROE. These stem from the UN Charter, Treaties, laws of war. In theory, on an international level, there are only two legal ways for a nation to engage in a war: Self-Defense or UN authorization. Like most countries try to do, in Vietnam the US claimed self-defense which is factually obviously dubious. Domestically, it was likely authorized initially by Congressional Gulf of Tonkin resolution but then spun out of control (ie, Congress didn’t really intend to authorize what the Vietnam war became with that resolution). This led to the War Powers Act to try and get Congress back more control for how long the President can act without Congressional approval (President can act initially but can’t last longer than 60 days).
To somehow tie this back to this thread, in my mind, Hegseth was talking about loosening the rules of engagement for specific soldiers. Untie their hands and let them fight more aggressively (legally), so to speak. Not about how the US itself will engage in wars.
Are you using this to mean one troop of soldiers, or one person (trooper)? I think the latter but know nothing about rules of engagement so I wasn’t sure.
Unit of soldiers, but both works. I was going back n forth between the two without noticing.
The actual written rules on a physical pocket card someone would follow would only go down as far as a local unit of soldiers. All those soldiers would follow that local ROE.
So, in the Iraq War, the commander in Fallujah over hundreds or thousands of troops, could have unique ROE for his unit (for positive ID, sneakers and a gun is enough to engage with deadly force). The individual soldier in that unit must use those specific ROE. The rest of Iraq might have different ROE (for positive ID, only when shot at to use deadly force).
Depending on the situation, you can have mission-specific ROE. Send in a small unit of SEALs, and they have their own ROE for that mission.
Hopefully this helps. The overall point is ROE is about how and when a solider can engage the enemy versus how nations engage each other on a national level. That’s about the extent of my knowledge here, though.
Per the U.S. Army, “troop” in its singular form is a group of soldiers. (But confusingly, when the plural appears with a large number, it is understood to mean individuals.)
Discussed in this previous thread here:
That’s because a ‘troop’ refers to a unit size of cavalry equivalent to a company of infantry or any other branch of the armed forces - but only in the US Army. In most other armies, it refers to a unit of cavalry the size of a platoon. Well, except for in the UK when referring specifically to the King’s Troop, Royal Horse Artillery where it refers to what would otherwise be called an artillery battery. The other regiments of the Royal Horse Artillery used to call their batteries troops because cavalry, horses and all, but they switched over to calling them batteries, excepting the King’s Troop, which is a purely ceremonial unit.
And yes, there are still three regiments of the Royal Horse Artillery on the roster, and no, they don’t use horses, they gave those up a long time ago. The same way the US Army continues to use ‘cavalry’ when they haven’t been mounted on horses since the start of WWII and thus uses the formation size of ‘troop’ instead of ‘company’ even though there are no longer any horses. And roughly three troops of cavalry in the US Amy form a squadron, not a battalion.
Too confusing.
Let’s call individual military people “onesies”
Let’s call a group of ten “tennies”
Let’s call a group of one hundred “hunnies”
Etc., etc., etc.
I dare you….
And their leader was Attila the Hunny.
Um, no. Let’s go with,“Centurions”.
A Centurion was the NCO in charge, the group was a “Centuria” and it consisted of 80 or 60 soldiers, depending on the era.
Originally it consisted of 100 men, thus the name.
Ten contubernia of eight legionnaires who shared a tent, plus twenty support troops
Looking for that, thanks. 
Hegseth says that it’s OK for drill instructors to lay hands upon (physically abuse) recruits. In this all-volunteer military, won’t that hurt the number of people wanting to enlist?
Not if you make civilian life so shitty most other choices are taken away.
They’ve modified AKA lowered recruiting standards enough so this is no longer a problem:
New York Times: This Program Rescued Army Recruiting
It hasn’t happenned yet, but eventually the tariffs are likely to crash the economy. That should further help recruiting.
Also, the recruiting pool is mostly young men who never attended college, or did not stick with it. This a a Trumpy demographic. Some may aspire to be that type of drill instructor.
The exact quote was “and yes they can put hands on recruits.”
Hegseth did himself go through basic training in an era when this was prohibited.
Does he believe this made him a lesser being?
Trump went to military school and exalted in the practice of physically bullying younger classmates. This informed his believe of himself as a greater being.
Canadian commentator Gwynne Dyer went through his own navy’s boot camp, and documented USMC’s version, and observed that it eventually wears off (for most well-balanced individuals. Amongst which I can only count myself marginally).
Graham Nash, for his part missed out on a national service obligation, yet saw the situation as as a matter of individual conscience, ultimately:
Military madness
Is killing our country
So much sadness
Between you and me