537 José Miguel Alía Plana Rules of engagement and governance of agramante’s camp http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee CONCLUSIONS ROEs are orders that determine the use of force in an operation, and the instrument for its exercise and control. They demarcate the “Agramante’s Camp”, a metaphor alluding to the area of conflict within which the military moves on campaign, amidst the chaos, the fog and the sway of battle; a space or environment whose nature is physical, psychological, legal and ethical; a sort of global military ecosystem. • The ROEs, arranged in a hierarchical system according to the “Porphyrian Tree”, follow a structured, nominalist and categorical pattern, divided into “groups” and “series”. The ROE-system is made up of a set of definitions and effects, the actors, the “prior concepts” and the “mandates” that outline a map of possible scenarios, and a series of relations that specify the diverse possibilities of using force according to concrete situations. They are a tool for governing a system, whose nature is algorithmic and cybernetic.The ROEs are a language, defining what is combat, the hostile act, the threat, the force itself, the enemy. They are also a dialogue that takes place on two levels; enemies dialogue with one another by means of force via ROEs. From the point of view of the various hierarchical echelons in which each strategic, operational and tactical contestant is situated, the actors communicate with one another through the “ROEs game”, a set of procedures established within each organisation to implement the ROEs. Standardised formulas are used, that flow in ascending and descending mode: “ROE Request” (ROEREQ); “ROE Authorisation or Denial” (ROEAUTH); and “ROE Implementation or Cancellation” (ROEIMPL).ROEs are cartographic machines; they are map, but not territory, in line with “Korzybski’s dictum”. They are the language and map of violence, but unlike violence per se, they do not forecast the future nor ordain its course. • The binomial ROE/collateral damage forms a political violence management structure. Collateral damage is a dual-use concept, transcending an internal control of military efficacy and efficiency, nuancing the effects that the knowled-ge of casualties could bring about in public opinion and acting on government support, its decisions and future military actions. It is the key that opens “po-litical correctness”, creating its vision of what is real, its own totem and taboo. Such a binomial deconstructs previous history and references and establishes a new conceptual model. It inaugurates a military paradigm based on the control of violence and on the narrative of the action. In addition to operational trans-formations, this represents a change in the ethics of weaponry, constructed out of the “magic of expression” and the “power of the word”.
REVISTA IEEE 5
To see the actual publication please follow the link above