Quote Originally Posted by merl View Post
What are you proposing the troops be allowed to to that they cannot do now? Multiple people have said change the ROE, take the gloves off. This sounds like a fluff sound bite to me, what should the troops be allowed to do that they cannot now do?

As a civilian ROE means "when can troops shoot?" Is there more to it than that?

edit:
I see Stoner added "Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel." Thank you.
Since we already do use intel heavily, is the change here lowering the confirmation standards so we don't have to know for sure the intel is accurate?
Now, merl, if I had a specific and concise answer to that, I'd be making a lot more money. Sorry if you consider my statement of opinion a little to general.

But since you have previously stated the following, what good would a detailed answer do anyway?
Quote Originally Posted by merl Post #3
I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?
Quote Originally Posted by merl Post #7
I'm of the opinion it does not hurt the country, certainly not any more than war is (in an economic sense).
There are many members here who are more highly trained, educated and experienced, concerning those specifics, to which I will defer, and several have offered up more specific opinions on change.