The Rules of Engagement are strict, legally binding directives that govern when and how American forces can use lethal force when in theater of war. Although these directives ostensibly fall under international law and can be influenced by it, individual nations. For this reason, joint coalition forces in Iraq acted under different ROEs depending on their national allegiance. During the Iraq invasion, these included the “positive identification” of a legitimate military target, the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, prisoners of war or casualties. These ROEs were considered strategically significant to the Bush administration’s goal to “win the hearts and minds” of the civilians under US occupation. The strict accountability also led to extensive documentation, such as shooter’s statements, for every confirmed kill.

In Kyle’s memoir, the ROEs are presented as a constant and often frustrating presence on the battlefield, dictating the precise conditions under which his shots were legally justifiable. For him, this framework created a persistent tension between official policy and the split-second, life-or-death decisions required in urban combat. He asserts that ROEs were written by lawyers far removed from the battlefield, putting US soldiers’ lives at risk by demanding a level of certainty that was often impossible to achieve. He writes, “According to the ROEs I followed in Iraq, if someone came into my house, shot my wife, my kids, and then threw his gun down, I was supposed to NOT shoot him” (342). This reveals a cultural tension between state laws on personal rights to lethal force in the US and the ROEs tighter controls on US troops as an invading force in Iraq. Kyle also expresses disdain for the compliance part of his role, calling it a “pain in the ass” and getting another serviceman to complete his forms (339).