Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.
But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.
When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.
In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.
I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.
|
I can go back and sadly find instances where that may have been the case - not using maximum firepower and ignoring collateral damage when American forces may be overrun. Yes, both AFG and Iraq were full of instances where institutionally the decision was made to not use the most firepower available, even when it was the correct tool for the job. My point, not properly fleshed out, was that there was no real attempt made, when the fit hit the shan. Assets were available, that even on 1 hour alert, could have been on station in time to make a difference, at least in half the Americans killed. If those assets were not available then someone dropped the ball. If those assets were available but not put on high alert or dispatched to the area, then someone dropped the ball or they decided not to. The military does respond to issues with diplomatic personnel, maybe not contractors, but certainly diplomatic personnel. I really don't care who dropped the ball, other than to identify them, publicly if necessary, to see that it does not happen again. Commanders of all types get canned for doing minuscule crap but rarely do the higher Civ / Mil leaders get canned when they eff up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Nope