From reading the report it claims that a person fired at the Australian patrol.
but instead of firing back, the Australian's issue a verbal warning?
they only return fire when the hostile apparently ignores their warning "please don’t shoot at us"
this seems like the ROE are a bit screwed up to me. I can understand a gradual escalation of force if some one is threatening you with a knife but if that person has a gun and it is shooting at you, then you shoot back.
The insurgents can fire a few shots at a Aussie patrol and while the aussies are doing their gradual escalation of force thing ,the insurgents escape to fight another day. If this is the standard operating procedure then it stands to reason that the insurgents will see the aussies as a easier target and begin to target the Australians more.
In addition their was a recent incident where a car with armed people inside was permitted to approach an Australian patrol at high speed and even pull in between two ASLAVs. Again their was hand signals and verbal warnings but the patrol did not open fire until the car was in between the two armored vehicles.
If the car had been hostile and been filled with explosives allowing the car to come so close would have resulted in the ASLAVS being severely damaged and potential Australian casualties.
Hopefully in light of these two incidents, the tactics/ ROES will be allow deadlier force to be used before a potential threat can get into position to cause harm to a Australian patrol.
Obviously it’s a balance between reacting too quickly and not acting quickly enough. You don’t want a civilian car being targeted for just being on the same street as a patrol, but on the other hand it looks like things have drifted a bit to far in the avoid collateral damage at all costs direction.
