Rules Of Engagement Essay

The film Rules of Engagement show several moral and ethical dilemmas, the most obvious being the conflict for the film. The film follows the story of a mission assigned to Colonel Terry Childers that goes awry. During an evacuation mission, Colonel Terry Childers gave the order for his men to open fire on a protesting crowd when they began receiving fire from armed protesters and snipers across the street. This resulted in the death of 83 civilians and injuries to over 100 more, leading to his court-martial and the argument that he fired into an unarmed peaceful protest instead of in self-defense (Gaghan, 2000). There are many moral and ethical dilemmas posed in the film. The most controversial one is Childress' decision to open fire into the crowd. Was this warranted? However, the larger dilemma presented in the film people overlook is the decision by the U.S. National Security Advisor, Bill Sokal,

As a citizen, he had a duty to support the troops and respect the rights of the innocent. He chose to place the interest of the state over the truth and the innocence of a soldier, believing that this would be the only way to ensure continued relations with Middle Eastern countries. Sokal used Childers as a scapegoat in order to portray the U.S. as a righteous judge that brought swift justice on a rogue officer. This was a morally reprehensible act and violates principles of common morality. Ethically, Sokal’s choice can be interpreted either to be justified, or as criminal. Based on the Army values, Sokal demonstrated a lack of integrity and respect, but he did show loyalty, selfless service, and sense of duty to his country. However, those same values were broken when he turned his back on a soldier who served his country faithfully and was in need of help. Sokal failed to show loyalty and duty to both the citizens of U.S. and to Childers for his service to the