Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/17/2005 5:38:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 5:39:23 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]
If you were the Commander during the Black Hawk Down situation in Somalia, would you have allowed Shughart and Gordon to go down to the black hawk knowing they would be isolated and would surly die?

Financially and logistically speaking, it is cheaper to train one pilot than it is to train 2 Delta Operators. It is "easier" overall to lose one pilot as opposed to 2 Delta Operators. The 2 Delta guys were more valuable overall in the situation than the downed pilot.

I would have denied their request unless there were other units in the area that could have backed them up.

It was a very heroic thing they did, and they had a personal desire to save the pilot, but as the Commander, I would have seen them as too valuable to sacrifice to a hopeless cause--saving the one pilot from 30-40 armed Somalis.

What would you all have done as the Commander?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:43:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
If you were the Commander during the Black Hawk Down situation in Somalia, would you have allowed Shughart and Gordon to go down to the black hawk knowing they would be isolated and would surly die?

Financially and logistically speaking, it is cheaper to train one pilot than it is to train 2 Delta Operators. It is "easier" overall to lose one pilot as opposed to 2 Delta Operators. The 2 Delta guys were more valuable overall in the situation than the downed pilot.

I would have denied their request unless there were other units in the area that could have backed them up.

It was a very heroic thing they did, and they had a personal desire to save the pilot, but as the Commander, I would have seen them as too valuable to sacrifice to a hopeless cause--saving the one pilot from 30-40 armed Somalis.

What would you all have done as the Commander?

Let em go. They knew the odds, they chose to go in after the man. They believe that if there is any hope at all you don't leave a man behind. I don't want to insult soldiers with this comparison but as a firefighter we have a similar code that we live, and sometimes die, by. You don't leave a man behind.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:47:31 PM EDT
I agree, you don't make it a policy to leave men behind, but you have to also make sacrifices to win overall...

It was a screwed up operation to begin with. In that area of the world, I would prefer a scorched earth policy, but I am just asking from a command perspective.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:53:30 PM EDT
Leave no man behind
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:53:54 PM EDT
That "leave no man behind" tradition is probably the single most important motivator that I can think of.

No matter how bad a position you're in, NEVER give up because your buddies will NEVER give up on you. It may cost more lives, but there are more important things than life: morale, courage, honor, and or course, liberty and freedom.

<-- Never been in combat, just a steel tube hundreds of feet below the surface, but I think I understand it. I also knew that 90% of the ocean is at depths that preclude rescue.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:54:02 PM EDT
NO.

napalm would have worked just as good.

Lebrew
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:58:18 PM EDT
There was a documentary about a downed pilot and his ?navigator in Vietnam. Something like 18 men died trying to save one of the crewmen. In the end a Navy SEAL went in by sampan and rescued him. It is one characteristic of the U.S. military that separates it from the rest of the world: they will do what they can to save their men. At least from what I've read.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:01:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:02:05 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]

Originally Posted By OZ309:
Leave no man behind



Well, how many men would you sacrifice to save one? I agree with not leaving men behind, but there are limits. Not leaving anyone behind is not the overall goal of an operation.

If you knew it would cost 15 lives to save one man who was left behind, you would order it? What if it would cost 150 men? What if it would cost the entire operation's success? There are limits, and Commanders must make decisions not based totally on emotion or on a creed.



Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:01:34 PM EDT
You don't do it for your country, you do it for the man next to you knowing that he would do it for you.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:03:20 PM EDT
Yes.

What type of message would that have sent to your force if you said no over the radio? That might just be the blow to their morale that changes the whole battle. After all, they did have several pockets of resistance scattered throughout the city. What would they have thought about the commander saying no to rescue efforts?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:04:34 PM EDT
I'll fight harder knowing that I will not be left behind. If I knew that men get abandoned easily I will be more concerned with making sure that I have an out, rather than going forward.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:05:15 PM EDT
I couldn't imagine anything worse than being captured by people who HATE the U.S.

Leave no man behind.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:06:56 PM EDT
It would have simply destroyed morale because each man or small group of men would wonder if he/they were to be the next being left behind. You do it because you know your buddies would do the same for you.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:07:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By OZ309:
Leave no man behind



Well, how many men would you sacrifice to save one? I agree with not leaving men behind, but there are limits. Not leaving anyone behind is not the overall goal of an operation.

If you knew it would cost 15 lives to save one man who was left behind, you would order it? What if it would cost 150 men? What if it would cost the entire operation's success? There are limits, and Commanders must make decisions not based totally on emotion or on a creed.





I believe one of the duties of an officer is to personally notify the parents of the deceased. It's a heavy weight on one's conscience to tell the parents that you didn't bother saving their son/daughter.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:14:07 PM EDT
As an officer how hard can you expect your men to fight if they think that they will/may be left behind should they become wounded or seperated from the unit?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:19:59 PM EDT
There it is , you said it, [if you knew] The thing is you don't know how many men it will take. How would the commander know that they would die? How would he know not know that reinforcements would not arrive in time? Silly question you ask!

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By OZ309:
Leave no man behind



Well, how many men would you sacrifice to save one? I agree with not leaving men behind, but there are limits. Not leaving anyone behind is not the overall goal of an operation.

If you knew it would cost 15 lives to save one man who was left behind, you would order it? What if it would cost 150 men? What if it would cost the entire operation's success? There are limits, and Commanders must make decisions not based totally on emotion or on a creed.




Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:20:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
Financially and logistically speaking, it is cheaper to train one pilot than it is to train 2 Delta Operators. It is "easier" overall to lose one pilot as opposed to 2 Delta Operators. The 2 Delta guys were more valuable overall in the situation than the downed pilot.


It is true that training is expensive but there is no price tag on people due to the amount of training they have.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:23:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:28:31 PM EDT by _DR]
This is a touchy topic - because you don't want to say they died in vain. They were very, very courageous men.

But I read Micheal Durant's book "In the Company of Heroes" not long ago.
Michael Durant is sure that those two men saved his life that day.

I'm not so sure.

Perhaps only in that they gingerly removed him from the helo with a broken back, and the Somalis no doubt would not have been so gentle.

The fact is, after Gordon and Shugart were killed, the Somalis took custody of Durant anyway, and he was the only one that survived, of those who had not been already evacuated and were left on the ground from the crash of Super-Six-Four. So yes, being extracted from the helo with care might have prevented further injury, but Durant goes on to tell how the Somalis threw him around carelessly with his injuries anyway, and he was kept alive as a bargaining chip, so would the outcome have arguably been essentially the same had Gordon and Shughart NOT gone down? It's hard to say. It was only the intervention of a Somali clan sub-chief that spared Durant's life, Aidid needed a bargaining chip, and they had orders to capture Americans alive where possible.

OR would the crowd have ripped him to shreds like the others before the chief could get to Durant, had Gordon and Shugart not put up the battle they did?

We will never know for sure.

I did get this gruesome tidbit from the book. In early interviews, Durant said that after Gordon and Shughart were killed, and he was surrounded by the mob, he was struck in the face by a rifle butt which fractured an eye socket (orbit).

IN the book he discloses that for sensitivity's sake, he had lied about this. He said what the mob member actually struck his face with to cause the injury was the severed arm of an American, probably one of the dead crew chiefs. The movies also shows a rifle butt.

So was the death of the two Delta snipers in vain? I think you could argue it both ways.

In any case I highly recommend Durant's book. It recounts many details not seen in Bowden's book, Black Hawk Down, or in the movie that was based on the book.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:25:43 PM EDT
When that Pilot went down he knew that everything would be done to get him out. Its kinda like Hoot said toward the end of the Movie "Its about the guy next to you". Its what keep people going in war. If you knew that if something would happen to you while you were fighting and nothing would be done how hard would you really fight.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:25:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OZ309:
It would have simply destroyed morale because each man or small group of men would wonder if he/they were to be the next being left behind. You do it because you know your buddies would do the same for you.



Well said.
Knowing people have your back is a good motivator and morale booster.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:27:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

But I read Micheal Durant's book "In the Company of Heroes" not long ago.




Great book.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:27:48 PM EDT
I think there is a bit too much emotion in these responses. I'm not asking about the true worth of a soldier, or anything like that. "No man left behind" alone is not an answer.

I was asking if you would send them in knowing they would be cut off and would likely die, or would you deny their request, because they could be better utilized somewhere else instead of being sent into a hopeless situation.

Are you all saying that it is foolish for a Commander to sacrifice one pilot to achieve the overall goal?

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:28:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
It is true that training is expensive but there is no price tag on people due to the amount of training they have.



So all reenlistment bonuses are for the same amount?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:31:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OZ309:
It would have simply destroyed morale because each man or small group of men would wonder if he/they were to be the next being left behind. You do it because you know your buddies would do the same for you.



Well said.
Knowing people have your back is a good motivator and morale booster.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:31:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
If you were the Commander during the Black Hawk Down situation in Somalia, would you have allowed Shughart and Gordon to go down to the black hawk knowing they would be isolated and would surly die?

Financially and logistically speaking, it is cheaper to train one pilot than it is to train 2 Delta Operators. It is "easier" overall to lose one pilot as opposed to 2 Delta Operators. The 2 Delta guys were more valuable overall in the situation than the downed pilot.

I would have denied their request unless there were other units in the area that could have backed them up.

It was a very heroic thing they did, and they had a personal desire to save the pilot, but as the Commander, I would have seen them as too valuable to sacrifice to a hopeless cause--saving the one pilot from 30-40 armed Somalis.

What would you all have done as the Commander?



Going by your theory what would the difference be in comparing the cost to train a Firefighter or LEO versus whatever it cost to train you when it comes to you needing rescued from a disaster, accident etc...those professionals risk their lives to save others because they know if they go down someone will come for them.
They don't give a thought about what you are worth or cost to train they only know it needs to be done. Our fighting men and women risk/give their all because they know someone will do the same for them.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:32:24 PM EDT
The other thing I remember about this in BHD, and I have no idea how accurate it was: Shughart and Gordon requested permission to land; the CO refused to order or not order, but left it up the men involved. They, of course, knew the odds and did it anyway.

BTW: The very large training base area at Ft. Polk is named after Shughart and Gordon.

Merlin
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:33:24 PM EDT
Of course an effort to rescue the pilot would have been made if possible. I would not write anyone off w/o a rescue effort.

I simply would not have used 2 lone men against 30-40 armed Somalis. That is a waste of 2 valuable men.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:34:21 PM EDT
Better to tell two mothers their sons died fighting to save another, than to tell one mother you left her son behind. It is a difficult question, but what you have really exposed is the simple difference between management and leadership.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:35:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:39:32 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I think there is a bit too much emotion in these responses. I'm not asking about the true worth of a soldier, or anything like that. "No man left behind" alone is not an answer.

I was asking if you would send them in knowing they would be cut off and would likely die, or would you deny their request, because they could be better utilized somewhere else instead of being sent into a hopeless situation.

Are you all saying that it is foolish for a Commander to sacrifice one pilot to achieve the overall goal?




I think from Garrison's point of view there were many unknowns.

1. He did not know how many of the crew were alive.
2. He did not know the extent of the mob that was approaching, although he had to have an idea from the live video and reports.
3. He did not know that most of the crew would be too injured to moved and be carried out out post haste - although this could be assumed.
4. The Delta operators were often given leeway to assess and make on the spot decisions due to their experience and role.
5. I think he knew there was a good chance they would not survive that action.

I think the lack of contingency planning and gross underestimation of the enemy played a large role here.

I do not think Garrison acted foolishly to let them go in, under the circumstances. I think he made a hard decision, but ultimately left it up to Gordon and Shughart.
Garrison would have been criticized if he had not let them go in, and all the crew of Super-Six-Four had died, regardless.

There is really no hard and fast answer here. Only interpretations.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:38:47 PM EDT
My response to deny them permission is heavily influenced by hindsight, I admit that.

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:40:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I think there is a bit too much emotion in these responses. I'm not asking about the true worth of a soldier, or anything like that. "No man left behind" alone is not an answer.

I was asking if you would send them in knowing they would be cut off and would likely die, or would you deny their request, because they could be better utilized somewhere else instead of being sent into a hopeless situation.

Are you all saying that it is foolish for a Commander to sacrifice one pilot to achieve the overall goal?




Yeah there's alot of emotion in these posts, so what do you think keeps men going in combat but emotion? Is it because of what their country will do for them should they become wounded/seperated, no it's because of what they know their buddies will do for them.
When you put your life in the hands of a comrade or ask him to put his life in your hands how can it not be emotional?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:41:29 PM EDT
The stated "no man left behind" is not only for the one that is lost in combat.
Each man in the fighting force fights harder to rescue one knowing that he may be that man.
If not, if we left those who were lost to their fate, what would that do to the morale of those fighting in battle?


The Army Ranger creed affirms the fervent support that the "no man left behind" policy has within the military: "Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country."

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:42:26 PM EDT
It's not about the balance sheet.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:44:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:50:04 PM EDT by FAIL-SAFE]

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
If you were the Commander during the Black Hawk Down situation in Somalia, would you have allowed Shughart and Gordon to go down to the black hawk knowing they would be isolated and would surly die?

Financially and logistically speaking, it is cheaper to train one pilot than it is to train 2 Delta Operators. It is "easier" overall to lose one pilot as opposed to 2 Delta Operators. The 2 Delta guys were more valuable overall in the situation than the downed pilot.

I would have denied their request unless there were other units in the area that could have backed them up.

It was a very heroic thing they did, and they had a personal desire to save the pilot, but as the Commander, I would have seen them as too valuable to sacrifice to a hopeless cause--saving the one pilot from 30-40 armed Somalis.

What would you all have done as the Commander?



It wasnt just "the pilot". It was two pilots and two crew chiefs, 4 men. Durant, in his book said they were all alive after the crash, and his peter pilot even got out of the wreckage. Would I send 2 men in to try and rescue 4? Every damned time.

I would've liked to have seen the slick that dropped Gordon and Shughart off hang around and try to provide some suppressive fire, after all thats what M-134s are really good at. I would've also like to see the AH-6Js have more of a precense. Hindsight is 20/20. They had other duties to attend to, I'm sure.

There's two great sayings:

Leave No Man Behind <<<Dunno who lays claim to this one

and

These things we do, that others may live. <<<Air Force PJs claim this one, and for great reason

As for the other poster who was speaking of 18 men killed to rescue a man, that man was Lt. Col. Iceal "Ham" Hamilton. He was, at the time, USAFs best ECM man. He was on an EB-66 ECM aircraft, and he didnt have to be. He thought up a great way to use the aircraft, and instead of sitting back and telling someone else to do, he implemented his plan. It worked. Unfortunantly the aircraft he was aboard was downed. The men killed trying to save him werent asked to go, they heard a man was down, behind enemy lines, and they went to his aid. The bravery....

I am privileged to live in a country that has guardians that will do their best to save each other.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:44:24 PM EDT
I am just curious, because it seems that a lot of you are saying, that if a unit were tasked with an important objective, and one member of the unit were cut off, you all would be totally in favor of saying forget the overall objective entirely, we must focus on saving the one member, regardless of the overall mission objective's importance.

The main objective is to not leave anyone behind, not the actual mission objective? I disagree with that. You never needlessly leave a man behind, but the mission objective is the first priority.

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:45:12 PM EDT
The dire situation that those guys were left in really shows the clusterfvkc that was Klinton. If I were the President they would have had all kinds of support. Armor, and at least a spectre gunship for air support from the get go...
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:47:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:
There was a documentary about a downed pilot and his ?navigator in Vietnam. Something like 18 men died trying to save one of the crewmen. In the end a Navy SEAL went in by sampan and rescued him. It is one characteristic of the U.S. military that separates it from the rest of the world: they will do what they can to save their men. At least from what I've read.

He was the first of 3 navy seals to recieve the Medal of honor for that op. The last of the 3 recieve his for saving him.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:47:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glazer1972:
The dire situation that those guys were left in really shows the clusterfvkc that was Klinton. If I were the President they would have had all kinds of support. Armor, and at least a spectre gunship for air support from the get go...



I agree. It was screwed up from the get-go.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:47:44 PM EDT
Your unit fights harder as a whole knowing that no one will be left behind as would the unit cease to be effective if each man were worried about what will happen when it's their time. Knowing you are going to be left behind would destroy morale and combat effectiveness.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:48:20 PM EDT
I have it on good authority that their request to go in was denied several times and they keep making the request. Pretty much they were asked if they were sure they wanted to do it. I was also told that a lot of dust was kicked up when they inserted but when it cleared they gave a thumb's up to the bird that inserted them.

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:48:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:51:36 PM EDT by _DR]
Look at the timeline and events.

Put yourself in Garrison's shoes.

What would you have done?

I would probably done the same.



October 3, 1993
Afternoon.

1449 — Two principle targets, Habr Gidr clan leaders, spotted at a residence in central Mogadishu, Somalia.

1532 — Official force launch. The force launches: nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles and 160 men.

1542 — Official assault beginning. 1st SOFD-D soldiers hit the target house. Four Ranger chalks rope in. One Ranger, Private Todd Blackburn, misses the rope and falls 70 feet to the street.

1547 — Large crowds of Somalis converging on the target area.

1558 — One of the vehicles, a five-ton truck, is hit and disabled by a rocket propelled grenade, several men are wounded.

1600 — Forces of armed Somalis converging on the target area from all over Mogadishu.

1602 — Targets acquired: assault force reports both clan leaders and about 21 others in custody. As the force prepares to pull out, three vehicles are detached to rush the wounded Private Blackburn back to the base.

1615 — Fighting and confusion delays loading the prisoners and pulling out.

1620 — First helicopter crash (Super 61): Black Hawk Super Six One is hit by a rocket propelled grenade and crashes five blocks northeast of the target.

1622 — Crowds of Somalis racing toward Super 61 crash site.

1626 — HUMVEE convoy starts moving. Prisoners loaded, the convoy and ground forces all begin moving toward the downed chopper. Black Hawk Super Six Four, piloted by Michael Durant, takes the downed chopper's place in orbit over the fight.

1628 — Search and rescue of Super 61: search and rescue team ropes in to assist the downed crew. Both pilot and copilot are dead.

1635 — Convoy gets lost: convoy makes a wrong turn and begins wandering lost through city streets, sustaining heavy casualties.

1640 — Second helicopter crash (Super 64): Mike Durant's Black Hawk, Super Six Four, is hit and crashes about a mile southwest of the target. Hostile crowds begin moving toward it.

1642 — Shughart and Gordon drop down to Super 64 crash's site: two snipers, Sergeants Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon, are inserted by helicopter to help protect the injured Durant and his crew.

1654 — HUMVEE convoy abandons Super 61 search: the lost convoy, with more than half of its force wounded or dead, abandons its search for the first downed Black Hawk and begins fighting its way back to the base.

1703 — Emergency convoy dispatched from Command and Control: a smaller, emergency convoy —Quick Reaction Force— is dispatched in an attempt to rescue the men stranded at Durant's crash site. It encounters immediate obstacles.

1734 — Emergency and HUMVEE convoy decide to return to base: both convoys, battered and bleeding, link up and abandon the effort to break through to Durant. The remainder of the ground force of Rangers and commandos are converging around the first crash site, sustaining many casualties. Ranger Corporal Jamie Smith is among those shot.

1740 — Shugart and Gordon killed: Somali crowds overrun Durant's crash site, killing Shughart, Gordon, and every member of the crew, except Durant, who is carried off by militia through the city.


1745 — Both convoys return to the base. Ninety-nine men remain trapped and surrounded in the city around the first downed Black Hawk, fighting for their lives. Corporal Smith bleeding heavily, medic requests immediate evacuation.

1908 — Black Hawk Super Six makes a daring re-supply run, dropping water, ammo and medical supplies to the trapped force. It is badly damaged, cannot land to evacuate Corporal Smith, limps back to base.

2027 — Ranger Corporal Jamie Smith dies.

2100 — Joint Task Force Command requests assistance from other commands: giant convoy, two companies of 10th Mt. Division troops along with the remainder of Task Force Ranger, Pakistani tanks and Malaysian armored vehicles, forms at Mogadishu's New Port, and begins planning the rescue.

2323 — The giant rescue convoy moves out.


October 4, 1993

Early morning, Rangers are still trapped inside Mogadishu.

0155 — Rescue convoy reaches the trapped Ranger force. A second half of the convoy reaches the site of Durant's downed Black Hawk. There is no trace of the crew.

0300 — Forces still struggling to remove the pinned body of Cliff Wolcott, pilot of Super Six One.

0530 — Rangers start moving from the city to the Pakistani Stadium, on foot: Wolcott's body is finally recovered. Vehicles roll out of the city. Ranger force is left to run out of the city through gunfire, "The Mogadishu Mile".

0630 — The force returns to the Pakistani Stadium. Eighteen dead, 73 injured.

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:51:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By stony275:
I have it on good authority that their request to go in was denied several times and they keep making the request. Pretty much they were asked if they were sure they wanted to do it. I was also told that a lot of dust was kicked up when they inserted but when it cleared they gave a thumb's up to the bird that inserted them.




OK, so, my initial decision to deny them permission was the same sound, rational decision made by the actual Commander.

From a command perspective, I think it was the correct decision.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:53:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
The main objective is to not leave anyone behind, not the actual mission objective? I disagree with that. You never needlessly leave a man behind, but the mission objective is the first priority.




The main objective was to get Aidids top aids.

Mission Accomplished.

Wolcotts crash happened after the mission was accomplished, and Durants happened even later. It wouldnt have risked the goal of the mission as the mission was technically completed.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:54:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
The main objective is to not leave anyone behind, not the actual mission objective? I disagree with that. You never needlessly leave a man behind, but the mission objective is the first priority.




The main objective was to get Aidids top aids.

Mission Accomplished.

Wolcotts crash happened after the mission was accomplished, and Durants happened even later. It wouldnt have risked the goal of the mission as the mission was technically completed.



I agree. Overall the mission at that point was to rescue. It can still argued that sending in the 2 Delta guys at that time was incorrect.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:55:30 PM EDT
The "cost" of training and value of people is a horrible analysis of this situation.

If I was the commander I would do exactly what Garrison did, which was to leave the decision to the two men requesting permission to go in.

The guys saying "leave no man behind" are correct. IF at all possible you can save a man's life and even recover his body, you do it. Knowing the men at your side will stand with you to the death IS the best motivator in combat.


I have never served, but I have enough sense to realize all this. I can put myself in that scenario and see that the above holds true. To a far lesser and less serious degree (life and death not being involved in my case) I have had incidents at work where I knew my coworkers and superiors where behind me and you can bet it motivated me to do and say things I wouldn't have had they not had my back.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:57:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 6:58:41 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]

Originally Posted By A_G:
The "cost" of training and value of people is a horrible analysis of this situation.

If I was the commander I would do exactly what Garrison did, which was to leave the decision to the two men requesting permission to go in.

The guys saying "leave no man behind" are correct. IF at all possible you can save a man's life and even recover his body, you do it. Knowing the men at your side will stand with you to the death IS the best motivator in combat.


I have never served, but I have enough sense to realize all this. I can put myself in that scenario and see that the above holds true. To a far lesser and less serious degree (life and death not being involved in my case) I have had incidents at work where I knew my coworkers and superiors where behind me and you can bet it motivated me to do and say things I wouldn't have had they not had my back.



I did not mean it in an entirely dollars-and-cents way. I meant as pertains to their abilities in the current situation. Obviously an admin clerk is less valuable in a combat zone than a troop commander.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:58:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 7:02:46 PM EDT by OZ309]

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I am just curious, because it seems that a lot of you are saying, that if a unit were tasked with an important objective, and one member of the unit were cut off, you all would be totally in favor of saying forget the overall objective entirely, we must focus on saving the one member, regardless of the overall mission objective's importance.

The main objective is to not leave anyone behind, not the actual mission objective? I disagree with that. You never needlessly leave a man behind, but the mission objective is the first priority.





No retrieving the one man and forsaking the mission is not the priority but the unit as a whole will have better morale and better overall combat effectiveness knowing they're not going to be left behind.
Who would want to follow a leader knowing that he will leave you behind or forsake you in order to accomplish the mission.
If you take care of your men they will take care of you by accomplishing the mission. As a MARINE and as a LEO I've had leaders I would follow to hell and back and some I could care less about, the former are the ones with better overall success.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:00:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OZ309:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I am just curious, because it seems that a lot of you are saying, that if a unit were tasked with an important objective, and one member of the unit were cut off, you all would be totally in favor of saying forget the overall objective entirely, we must focus on saving the one member, regardless of the overall mission objective's importance.

The main objective is to not leave anyone behind, not the actual mission objective? I disagree with that. You never needlessly leave a man behind, but the mission objective is the first priority.





No retrieving the one man and forsaking the mission is not the priority but the unit as a whole will have better morale and better overall combat effectiveness knowing they're not going to be left behind.
Who would want to follow a leader knowing that leave you behind or forsake you in order to accomplish the mission.
If you take care of your men they will take care of you by accomplishing the mission. As a MARINE and as a LEO I've had leaders I would follow to hell and back and some I could care less about, the former are the ones with better overall success.



I don't disagree that motivation plays a huge part in unit success.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:03:21 PM EDT
4 MEN, NOT JUST 1
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:08:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lebrew:
NO.

napalm would have worked just as good.

Lebrew




Yeah, but I was only a sophomore in HS in 1993. My mom wouldn't let me go to Somalia on a school night.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:08:33 PM EDT
Zarathustra1, let me ask you something.
If you were in combat would you fight harder or work harder towards accomplishing the mission if you knew you would not be left behind or would you fight harder if you knew you would be deserted if you so much as became seperated from your unit?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top