This is a strategic vs tactical argument:
Tactically, it's better to shoot first, sort out the details later;
Strategically, the occupying force's credibility as a "liberating force" evaporates in a heartbeat.
People who aren't "in the shit" determine the ROE with a perspective beyond the war itself, which is balanced against an operational assessment that the mission can still succeed with such restrictions in place. This is the difficulty of claiming a moral high ground when conducting war: tactical risks must be taken to maintain it. The enemy knows this and will take advantage of it.
To me, this is one of the more insidious sacrifices armed forces personnel must make: you are consciously sacrificing your own self-preservation based on someone else's decision. You sit there in the turret of your HMMWV, knowingthere's a very good chance an approaching vehicle is a VBIED but not being able to engage because it might cost your country a whole lot more if you do.
To most people, this is insane, but for nation-states and their militaries, it is necessary.
'via Blog this'