Being a part of a military family, and living on various military bases, you tend to hear a lot of military talk. One topic that comes up occasionally is the rules of engagement; though as a kid, I wasn't entirely sure what they were talking about. My first actual exposure to the limiting nature of the rules of engagement came from reading the book Lone Survivor, which told the true story of one Navy SEAL's difficulty with the rules of engagement. This initial exposure led me to look into them a little further, which is how I developed my stance on the rules of engagement. I immediately disagreed with their existence and relevance. I found it outrageous how many steps a soldier had to go through before he could decide whether or not to engage his target in combat. Generally in war, if someone wants to make a strike on the enemy, they have to provide their officer with the information they have on the target. The officer then contacts a lawyer who reviews the evidence and makes his suggestion whether or not to engage. This lengthy process sometimes takes longer than necessary, and the target strikes first or gets away. War is war for a reason; formalities such as the rules of engagement seem unnecessary. 

The first source I took a look at was titled G.I. Jag, and was from the academic database Academic Search Complete. The database provided me with an article from the National Review, written by author and former military member David French. The bias against the rules of engagement seemed to root from French's military experience. Serving in the military, he got to see first hand how these rules affected his comrades. This particular article served useful for my paper because it not only included an example of the rules of engagement failing American soldiers, but also provided some background on the rules in a recent setting. This article will serve useful to my paper, as I can use the example as further evidence to back my claims. I will also be able to use the other information to provide more information on the topic in general.

The second source I analyzed for the upcoming paper was an article from the Washington Post titled Rules of Engagement Limit the Actions of U.S. Troops and Drones in Afghanistan. The author for this article was Rowan Scarborough. Scarborough was a credible author for this particular article, as he is the national security correspondent for the Washington Post. This makes him credible because he has reported on many similar articles before. A relatively small bias exists from the military members interviewed, as they all seemed to speak against the rules of engagement. This will prove useful, as I will have more sources to enforce my stance against the rules of engagement. The article also gave some basic background information on what the rules of engagement are. 

The third, and final source that I have looked at for this research paper is titled The Rules of Engagement. This article was composed by several experts of the military field who included Lt. Col. David Bolgiano, Gen. James Conway, Josh White, Gary Myers, and Gary Solis. Each author adds a different element to the article that ultimately provides for no clear bias, as arguments from both sides are provided. The article discusses important topics of the Rules of Engagement. These topics include Rules of Engagement in terms of law, how they have changed over time, what constitutes self-defense, positive identification, and much more. This article provides good information to create a basis of knowledge for the controversy that exists, and the raw facts that accompany it. This article will aid my paper because it is the first article that provides information from both sides of the argument. This will let me include the counterargument to my paper, ultimately providing material to argue against it. This may be the most beneficial article I have utilized so far as no true bias exists. 

The research question I formulated is arguable because there are people who take both sides of it. Some people believe that it is morally right that the military fights with certain rules, to minimize casualties. Others believe that war is war, and that casualties are inevitable. An argument for the rules of engagement as presented by one of my sources is that if combat did need to occur because a serious threat is posed, then it can be. An argument against was that some situations are tricky, and often there is a high threat, but no concrete evidence. The different perspectives have led me to look at the argument from other angles, but ultimately, it was not enough evidence for me to alter my thesis question. 

