The term 'all is fair in love and war' is beyond incorrect. Since the beginning of time, civilizations have been attempting to regulate warfare. For example, "the Hindu Mahabharata, written around 200 B.C., urged warriors not to harm surrendered or incapacitated foes while the ancient Hindu Code of Manu and Second Lateran Council held in 1139 A.D. outlawed, or at least attempted to outlaw, the use of barbed or poisonous arrows and the crossbow, respectively" (Gualdoni). Though the general concept of war has remained the same throughout the years, the way it is conducted now is almost incomparable. The rise in the popularity of guns, and the development of technology has paved the way for an entirely new era of war. The jus in bello (international humanitarian law) were adopted by the Geneva Conventions, setting international war laws for sovereign states (Rivkin and Casey). As the United States is one of the most respected countries, we hold ourselves at a higher standard of conduct than most other countries. All countries are obliged to follow the jus in bello, however, the United States has set itself apart by also implementing Standing Rules of Engagement, or SROE for short. These additional rules are included in a written document, authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Standing Rules of Engagement "establish the basic policies and procedures governing the actions that ground commanders can take during all forms of military operations --  ranging from terrorist attacks to prolonged conflict beyond the borders of the United States" (Addicott 16). These rules tend to be slightly broad, as they are both available to the public, and general enough for commanders to develop them in separate Rules of Engagement, or ROE.  As defined by Lieutenant Colonel David Bolgiano, the Rules of Engagement serve to "set forth the parameters of when, how, for what duration and magnitude and geographical location, and against what targets our forces can employ force, generally deadly force  ...  in a theater of operations" (Bolgiano, Conway, Myers, Solis and White). The Rules of Engagement differ from the Standard Rules of Engagement because they are considered classified documents, due to the fact that they usually pertain to specific missions. Rules of Engagement always stem from the Standard Rules of Engagement, and the Law of War. From there, they are generally developed from national policy, which is put into context with the situation at hand, considering geography, culture, and the nature of the enemy forces (Addicott 18). The rules are carefully constructed to efficiently carry out the mission, while avoiding legal trouble and bad publicity at all costs. They need to be reviewed thoroughly as these rules can be the difference between life and death for American soldiers. Those drafting the documents range from the President to Commanders at War, as people of various ranks can set these Rules of Engagement. Upon completion, the rules are evaluated by the Secretary of Defense, who legitimizes them to be fulfilled. Once these rules are set, they are to be considered law, potentially providing grounds for an unwarranted criminal offense. If the disobedience of a Rule of Engagement is not punishable by law, the offender is dealt a punishment designated by the military command. When looking at these sets of rules, it is easy to note how they can negatively affect those who are trying to do the right thing. When some follow these rules and others don't, it provides an upper hand for one of the conflicted parties. It is also notable that the focus these rules put on the protection of civilians is unrealistic, and is inadvertently putting many other lives at risk, including American soldiers. The Standard Rules of Engagement and its following tiers need to be scrutinized in order to prevent deaths and to protect American soldiers and the lives of many others.

Though the sets of rules are rather vague, they still provide opportunity for enemies to capitalize on. All parties involved in any international conflict are expected to uphold the rules set by the jus in bello. It is unreasonable for one party to have to strictly follow this set, while the other to ignore them all together. For instance, terror groups are expected to follow the same rules of war, but there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions other than the people they are fighting. One example of this injustice occurred late in 2012, where the Taliban took down a helicopter filled with 30 American soldiers. Prior to the mass killing, the crew of another gunship had spotted two men on the move, and were denied the authorization to shoot and instructed to maintain surveillance. A separate pilot also had the opportunity to fire at the shooter, but due to the Rules of Engagement, was not able to directly fire at the building (Scarborough). The soldiers had to wait until they were engaged before engaging themselves. Because of this, an avoidable tragedy of 30 Americans deaths ensued. Were terrorists held to the same standards as actual countries, than events like those mentioned above would not occur. The absence of structure in war for terror groups provides for an uneven playing ground for both sides. Were the rules to be revised, there should be an inclusion of special circumstances when necessary. 

It is a known fact that the words war and death are basically synonymous. Casualties on both sides are inevitable, and often, civilians are harmed in the process. Currently, the United States is combating terror groups overseas in the Middle East. Many of these terror groups are made up of citizens of their area who wear the same clothes as everyone else, even when in combat. To just interact with civilians believed to be associated with a target requires specific training set by the Rules of Engagement (Addicott 19). The terror groups capitalize on this and do there best to assimilate with average Middle Eastern citizens for protection purposes. Terrorists often surround themselves with civilians to avoid being bombed altogether. According to the Washington Post, there have been several instances where permission to shoot from a plane was denied, even when there were confirmed men with weapons (Scarborough). Terrorists have known about the international push for civilian safety, and have used that to their own benefit. If there are confirmed enemies, it is outrageous that they are able to walk because civilians surround them. To further protect civilians in Afghanistan specifically, the Afghan and US Presidents agreed to a 'safety agreement,' mandating US troops to avoid Afghan dwellings altogether (Scarborough). If troops are not allowed to attack from above, or set up camp nearby the location in question, their job becomes more difficult than it already was. It is understandable that people are concerned with the safety of civilians; however, it does not make sense to go above and beyond when it inhibits the ability of a military to get the job done.

A separate, but arguably most important fault of any rules set for war is the waste of the lives trying to do what is right. As said by Addicott, "Although all ROE recognize the inherent right of self-defense if attacked by an enemy, all ROE center on the concept of employing minimum force to complete any given activity, even at the expense of increased levels of harm to friendly forces" (Addicott 16). To put these lives at an even higher risk than need be should be a crime in itself. There are numerous reports of the Rules of Engagement failing US soldiers. One example was when US soldiers surrounded a village containing suspected high-threat terrorists, and a car full of men attempted to break through the blockade. A denied request to shoot from the US military led to the pursuit of this car, until it was finally surrounded. As soon as the suspects exited the car, one let a bomb go off resulting in the death of an American soldier (French 31). Based on thorough assessment of the people in the car, the senior officer had called in with what would seem as sufficient evidence to engage the suspect. However, as the request went through the chain of command, a denial based on lack of evidence resulted in the loss of another American hero. If a soldier was able to act based on the knowledge they possessed, it is truly disappointing to think how many American lives could have potentially been saved. The sets of Rules of War and Engagement seem to be more concerned with civilian lives, than the lives of those protecting these very civilians.

To fully understand the topic, it is important to put the opposing positive arguments of the Rules of Engagement in conversation with the arguments against it. There are some obvious benefits to regulating warfare, including guidelines for the fighting and such. One positive aspect that the rules of war bring to the table is a ban on any inhumane weapons. Weapons such as 'dum-dum bullets,' chemical and biological weapons are "banned outright on the basis that the military benefits of their use can never be proportionate to the suffering caused" (Byers). Rules like these are very black and white and can actually benefit people of the entire world. Another aspect of the rules that seems positive is the attempts to save civilian lives. It may seem that larger scale bombings, time spent with civilians and other similar actions would be of the benefit to everyone. This is an ignorant stance on the matter as it essentially does more harm then good for good people. Though fewer civilians are at risk, military members lives become increasingly endangered. For example, "in 1991, a number of coalition planes (RAF Tornados especially) were lost to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire because they were bombing from low altitudes in order to reduce civilian casualties. Less accurate high-altitude strikes by B-52s were restricted to targets well clear of civilian areas" (Byers). It is evident that the argument of laws pertaining to civilians does nothing but good, because as noted in the example earlier, many military lives have been subject to further risk.

When analyzing the sets of rules that mandate the parameters of war, it is easy to see that there is room for improvement. It is evident that an uneven playing field is set when these rules cannot be supremely enforced. It is evident that entire protection over all civilians is unrealistic, and that factors such as that put others lives at severe risk. The Standard Rules of Engagement and its following tiers need to be scrutinized in order to prevent deaths and to protect American soldiers.

