Are soldiers no longer thought expendable?

[dropzone]

Israel came down on Lebanon like a ton of bricks because Hizbollah captured two of its soldiers, triggering a war that has killed hundreds of people, including many Israeli soldiers. Popular culture and people here and IRL tell me the American military has a philosophy of "no man left behind." Yet many people consider the financial cost of an environmental law versus the number of lives the law will save before they will support it. Is there no point where military leaders say, "Sorry, son, but it would kill more people to save you than we feel you are worth?"

[Airman Doors, USAF]

A soldier is expendable in the course of their duties. If they are on a mission and get killed, that's a soldier taking a soldier's chance.

However, a soldier is (usually) also a citizen, and no government countenances the kidnapping of their people. The soldiers that were taken from Israel were kidnapping victims, not military casualties.

[Paul in Qatar]

Further, there has been a Revolution in Military Affairs in the last twenty years or so. Things are now very, very different from World War II. Armies are smaller, each person is many time more effective. Few armies now rely on low-cost, low-value conscripts.

Professional soldiers are very valuable people indeed.

Also, we want to punish an enemy who hurts our guys. This is good policy as well as human nature. Rescuing captured soldiers helps our own morale.

That being said, it is easy to go to far down this line of argument. Soldiers are people and we like to think we value human life highly. While we value the life of a soldier as we value all others, this value is not infinite. At some point it becomes excessive to take revenge on an enemy, or to try to rescue a captured comrade.

[Der Trihs]

The kidnapping of the two soldiers was either an excuse to attack or the straw that broke the camels back, depending on how you see things. It had little to do with the perceived value of soldiers lives IMHO.

In general soldiers lives are valued more than they once were, in no small part because treating them as expendable is rather foolish in modern warfare. It takes a fair amount of time and money to train soldiers; you don't just slap a rifle into their hands and send them to the front. Then there's the fact that throwing away soldiers lives WWI style is hugely unpopular in democracies, and rather bad for the soldier's morale as well.

[dropzone]

Is "kidnapping" the correct term? Near as I can tell, they were captured during a raid by an enemy force. Calling it "kidnapping" may make Israel feel like the members of Hizbollah are individual terrorists, but they are apparently equipped, organized, and numbered--and, for that matter, being fought by Israel--like an military force of irregulars, making "captured" the more appropriate term.

[dropzone]

Oh, and not that I would ever question the level of training of all members of IDF, nor their value as soldiers or humans, the IDF is roughly 2/3 conscripts, Paul. ;)

[Airman Doors, USAF]

ARe you saying that Hezbollah is a legitimate army? Who are they sponsored by? If they aren't officially sanctioned by Lebanon but sanctioned by someone else they are either occupiers of Lebanon (hence illegal) or they are a terrorist organization (hence illegal). If they are sponsored by Lebanon then Israel is fighting a legitimate war.

In any event, this "raid" of which you speak constitutes an invasion and thus is an act of war which Israel is allowed to respond to in kind, unless you say that they are not a legitimate army, in which case it is kidnapping, and no government will coutenance such acts. Which is it?

[dropzone]

They are as much a legitimate army as the Viet Cong. During the war in Vietnam our government did not refer to captured GIs as having been kidnapped by terrorists. They were POWs.

Hizbollah is supported by some members of the Lebanese government and an act of war like that raid is properly responded to through diplomatic channels. Or instance, the capture of the USS Pueblo did not result in a wholesale invasion of North Korea.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

No, but it could have, and under different circumstances (had we not been engaged in Vietnam) likely would have.

Hizbollah is supported by some members of the Lebanese government and an act of war like that raid is properly responded to through diplomatic channels.

In your opinion. Is it also your opinion that we should have negotiated with North Korea in 1950, Japan in 1941, and Germany in 1918? After all, what was Pearl Harbor but a single attack? What was the Zimmermann Telegram but an intention? What was the invasion of South Korea but an attempt at reunification?

Nothing is as simple as you would like it to be. For Israel, on the receiving end of random shellings and kidnappings, it is apparently worth their while to act militarily. As they are responding to either an act of war or a major criminal act, one that they feel that they should do something about, that was abetted by a government with no apparent control over what happens within their borders, one can scarcely blame them.

[dropzone]

(rolling my eyes) Dave, your examples are MAJOR attacks or INVASIONS! There is little comparison between them and an extremely minor cross-border incursion, one much smaller even than my example of the Pueblo. My OP asks if there's still a point where military leaders will write off a couple of grunts—and defer the problem up to the diplomats—because to go in after them in force is likely to cause the deaths of even more expensive and valuable men. From you I get the impression there is not, but there is the possibility that you might end up as one of those unlucky bastards so you have a personal stake in it. I, for one, am glad the diplomats and wiser military heads and not you prevailed when the Chinese held that EP-3 back in 2001. :eek:

[XT]

Israel came down on Lebanon like a ton of bricks because Hizbollah captured two of its soldiers, triggering a war that has killed hundreds of people, including many Israeli soldiers. Popular culture and people here and IRL tell me the American military has a philosophy of "no man left behind." Yet many people consider the financial cost of an environmental law versus the number of lives the law will save before they will support it. Is there no point where military leaders say, "Sorry, son, but it would kill more people to save you than we feel you are worth?"

Leaving aside the historical context (i.e., not like this was the first cross border raid by Hezbollah into Israel), and also leaving aside the rocket attacks directed at Israel's northern enclaves and cities full of civilians, and discussing the question as you should have asked it (IMO), which is simply 'Are soldiers expendable, and what length SHOULD the military go to ensure that no one is left behind' (while dropping your flawed look at the Lebanon/Israel ongoing blowup), I guess it comes down to...where do you draw the line exactly.

Do you draw it at 2 soldiers? 10? 100? How do you make the calculation of exactly how much risk is too much? Do you base it strictly on numbers? If you risk 10 soldiers to rescue one, is it worth it? 7.5? 4.3? Exactly how much risk is worth it. And what are the benifits? Obviously morale is a big one.

I remember reading about SAR missions in Vietnam where dozens of men risked their lives for one downed airman...and in some cases dozens DIED to ATTEMPT to rescue one downed airman. In many cases these men volunteered to keep going back in, though they knew that there was a good chance they would be killed doing so. On the surface (I suppose), this seems stupid to some. After all, one soldier is much like another to most folks...and after all, soldiers are in a high risk business.

As for when a NATION should draw those lines...well, I'm not sure exactly. The US, for example, was willing to allow the war in Vietnam to drag on while we negotiated for the release of our own POW's. Was this the right thing to do, considering that every day more soldiers died for that decision? I think it was.

-XT

[Airman Doors, USAF]

(rolling my eyes) Dave, your examples are MAJOR attacks or INVASIONS! There is little comparison between them and an extremely minor cross-border incursion, one much smaller even than my example of the Pueblo. My OP asks if there's still a point where military leaders will write off a couple of grunts—and defer the problem up to the diplomats—because to go in after them in force is likely to cause the deaths of even more expensive and valuable men. From you I get the impression there is not, but there is the possibility that you might end up as one of those unlucky bastards so you have a personal stake in it. I, for one, am glad the diplomats and wiser military heads and not you prevailed when the Chinese held that EP-3 back in 2001. :eek:

Well then, if you prefer, how about we refer back to that little abortive attempt to recover the Iranian hostages, approved by one Jimmy Carter, future winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Numerous soldiers died on that day to rescue hostages who, remarkably enough, obtained their release peaceably in 1981.

Would you contend that they were not worth the effort? Would you contend that military action was unwarranted? Would you contend that diplomacy with a country that we had no diplomatic relations with would have been effective?

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up the alleged "October Surprise", so I'll just head that off and venture my opinion that the Iranian terrorists, abetted by the revolutionary government, simply wanted to make Carter look bad by not giving him the satisfaction of releasing the hostages while he was still in charge. But that's all irrelevant. I have given you a case remarkably similar to the one that Israel faces on a regular basis. They have apparently decided that enough is enough. It only took us one such incident to come to that conclusion.

I anxiously await your condemnation of the much adored and peace-loving James Earl Carter, the man who is held up in all cases as the shining star and scion of the Democratic Party, who would have been the greatest ever had he not gotten such a raw deal. Or perhaps, as I said, things aren't as simple as you would like to think they are.

[John Mace]

Israel came down on Lebanon like a ton of bricks because Hizbollah captured two of its soldiers, triggering a war that has killed hundreds of people, including many Israeli soldiers. Popular culture and people here and IRL tell me the American military has a philosophy of "no man left behind." Yet many people consider the financial cost of an environmental law versus the number of lives the law will save before they will support it. Is there no point where military leaders say, "Sorry, son, but it would kill more people to save you than we feel you are worth?"
Israel's attack is about a lot more than the 2 soldiers. You have to look at this in the larger context of Israel's securty vis-a -is the continued arming of Hizbollah over the last 6 years in general and the last 2 years in particular (When UNSC resolution 1559 was passed).

[Lemur866]

Men are not potatoes.

[XT]

Men are not potatoes.

Do you have a cite for this incredible statement??? :confused:



...

...

...

:p

-XT

[dropzone]

Leaving aside the historical contextIn the law as well as in diplomacy precedence means an awful lot and one cannot toss context aside because you want to.and also leaving aside the rocket attacks directed at Israel's northern enclaves and cities full of civilians...The most recent group of attacks having been triggered by Israel's attack, IIRC. ...and discussing the question as you should have asked it (IMO)There's no longer a limit on title lengths here? I didn't think THAT much had happened while I was gone. ;) ...which is simply 'Are soldiers expendable, and what length SHOULD the military go to ensure that no one is left behind'Perhaps said better than mine but it's not the same question. Maybe it is because I was raised around WWII vets that I assume all soldiers know they live and die at the will of their superiors and I am constantly surprised when they act like it's unexpected. (shrug)(while dropping your flawed look at the Lebanon/Israel ongoing blowup)Flawed where? In that, by the standards of historical precedent, Israel's initial actions upon the capture of their men was excessive and inappropriate and that the better choice would have been to approach Hizbollah through the Lebanese government, one third of which belong to Hizbollah and which, therefore, is who you talk to about these things, to negotiate their release and that said excessive and inappropriate actions would not only cause the deaths of many Israeli soldiers, including the ones they were attempting to save, but also trigger a war that would kill many, MANY civilians? I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.I guess it comes down to...where do you draw the line exactly.Good question, and one that bears discussion. For me, invading South Korea in 1950 was a tacit declaration of war. A raid capturing two sergeants and bringing them back to Lebanon was not. The 10 or 100 you ask about is the gray area of discussion.Exactly how much risk is worth it. And what are the benifits? Obviously morale is a big one.As I recall, that was the reasoning behind the fictional raid depicted in "Saving Private Ryan." After the loss of the Sullivan brothers the morale effects of losing an entire squad of faceless, to the American public, soldiers to save prevent the loss of the last Ryan brother, with its subsequent bad publicity, made sense.On the surface (I suppose), this seems stupid to some. After all, one soldier is much like another to most folks...and after all, soldiers are in a high risk business.(pointing to myself) Yep, though an argument could be made weighing the military value of a highly trained pilot.As for when a NATION should draw those lines...well, I'm not sure exactly. The US, for example, was willing to allow the war in Vietnam to drag on while we negotiated for the release of our own POW's. Was this the right thing to do, considering that every day more soldiers died for that decision? I think it was.And I thought it was an obscenity.

[dropzone]

Well then, if you prefer, how about we refer back to that little abortive attempt to recover the Iranian hostages....I thought it was an amazingly stupid idea then and not one of Carter's best moments. Next bad example? ;)Would you contend that they were not worth the effort? Would you contend that military action was unwarranted? Would you contend that diplomacy with a country that we had no diplomatic relations with would have been effective?Nope, not worth the effort. Totally unwarranted. It was, wasn't it? Even without direct contact with the Iranian government we had proxies, like Canada, which could and did aid in negotiations.I'll just head that off and venture my opinion that the Iranian terrorists, abetted by the revolutionary government, simply wanted to make Carter look bad by not giving him the satisfaction of releasing the hostages while he was still in charge.I can see why you added that apparent hijack and I agree with you.I anxiously await your condemnation of the much adored and peace-loving James Earl Carter, the man who is held up in all cases as the shining star and scion of the Democratic Party, who would have been the greatest ever had he not gotten such a raw deal. Or perhaps, as I said, things aren't as simple as you would like to think they are. :rolleyes: I passed a recently harvested wheat field today. If you like I could pick up a bale of straw to refill that guy when you're done beating on him.

[dropzone]

Men are not potatoes.No, they are more expensive, though easier, to train and their families feel their loss. They are, however, tools used to win wars. George McClellan was thought to have grown so attached to his troops that he could not bear to actually use them because some might die, and he was justifiably criticized for the Civil War dragging on for months while he made excuses.

[XT]

In the law as well as in diplomacy precedence means an awful lot and one cannot toss context aside because you want to.

:rolleyes: Dude...I'M not the one clearly throwing said context blithely aside. Re-read your OP.

Let me translate what I was saying, since you clearly didn't get it. 'Since the OP has clearly decided to wave away the historical context of the actual situation in Lebanon, and for the sake of arguement'....

Get it?

The most recent group of attacks having been triggered by Israel's attack, IIRC.

You recall incorrectly. Did you want to debate the current war going on between Hezbollah and Israel? I kind of THOUGHT that was your real aim with this OP...leaving aside your contention it was all about Iraq, really.

Perhaps said better than mine but it's not the same question. Maybe it is because I was raised around WWII vets that I assume all soldiers know they live and die at the will of their superiors and I am constantly surprised when they act like it's unexpected. (shrug)

*shrug* YMMV

Flawed where? In that, by the standards of historical precedent, Israel's initial actions upon the capture of their men was excessive and inappropriate and that the better choice would have been to approach Hizbollah through the Lebanese government, one third of which belong to Hizbollah and which, therefore, is who you talk to about these things, to negotiate their release and that said excessive and inappropriate actions would not only cause the deaths of many Israeli soldiers, including the ones they were attempting to save, but also trigger a war that would kill many, MANY civilians? I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.

Because the conflict didn't arrive full blow simply because of the abduction of 2 soldiers. IOW your OP was ridiculously simplistic wrt the ACTUAL reasons for the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the role played by the abduction of those two soldiers in Israel's military response, what sparked Israel's response, and the reasons the situation rapidly escalated into the full blow conflict we are currently watching in horror. IOW, your OP? Its deeply flawed, at least this part of it.

Again, do you wish to debate the conflict here? There are several threads on the front page of GD discussing this...and I don't recall seeing you engage in any of them. Its your OP though.

Good question, and one that bears discussion. For me, invading South Korea in 1950 was a tacit declaration of war. A raid capturing two sergeants and bringing them back to Lebanon was not. The 10 or 100 you ask about is the gray area of discussion.

Yes....that simplistic line again. A cross border raid capturing 2 (or 1, or 10, or 100) soldiers may or may not be the pretext for a full blown war. But its definitely reasonable to expect SOME military response (which is what happened). When that escalates into small unit engagements, that is again pretty much an expected response. However, when THIS escalates into rocket attacks against civilian towns, I'd have to say that THIS is a reasonable pretext for full scale war.

And where there is a history (you know, that context stuff I mentioned earlier) of such cross border raids, then even the seemingly small act of taking 2 soldiers prisoner (or kidnapping them) can take on greater weight than it might not have...had tolerances not been lowered by such raids in the past.

As I said earlier, your example is poor for what you SEEM to want to actually discuss. The two soldiers taken from Israel did not, in and of themselves, spark the response we are seeing in Lebanon by Israel. It was one of multiple factors that caused an initial Israeli response (which WASN'T a full out attack). This response caused an escalation in Hezbollah's response back, which eventually lead to rockets flying and bombs falling.

(pointing to myself) Yep, though an argument could be made weighing the military value of a highly trained pilot.

And I thought it was an obscenity.

*shrug* YMMV. This is more in the realm of IMHO than GD though.

-XT

[Sunrazor]

I think Airman, Paul and Der Trihs pretty much answered the OP in their first posts. The kidnapping/capture of the Israelis was a provocation (and I think the media has said Hezbollah has all but admitted it was a deliberate one, and maybe even bragged about it) meant to make Israel react, thus keeping the situation unstable and, if possible, get more sympathy for the Palestinians, or at least kill a few Jews. There is some debate among the televised talking heads about whether Hezbollah miscalculated and now has its hands full of Israeli soldiers, or whether Israel miscalculated and played into Hezbollah's hands. The foreign policy experts at the coffee shop I frequent are split about 50-50 on this.

So rescuing the soldiers probably wasn't the real reason for bombing and incursing (when does an "incursion" become an "invasion?") southern Lebanon. I never got the feeling Israel really put the rescue of the two soldiers at the top of the priority list. It's been more of, "We're tired of you fucking with us, so it's time to do some real ass kicking."

[FinnAgain]

What I can't seem to figure out is that no matter how many times this discussion goes on, almost every time it's phrased as "does the kidnapping of two soldiers..."

What about the fact that Hezbollah was launching ordinance into Israel for about a month before that? What about the fact that on the day they captured and killed the soldiers, they launched ordinance attacks at Israeli villages?

Why not phrase the situation honestly and accurately?

"After a proxy force had launched ordinance at a country for some time, does that group's cross border attack which kills and captures several soldiers and occurs at the same time as continued ordinance attacks upon civilian populations justify a military reaction?"

And, about how the proper response to a series of military attacks is diplomatic negotiation... would you say the same thing if Israel, without provocation or cause, began targeting civilian areas and lobbing missiles there willy nilly, attacked the Lebanese military, and captured several of their soldiers? Would you say that, as a result, Lebanon should make concessions to Israel?

[FRDE]

It is the Katyushas that are the problem

Killing /eight/ soldiers and capturing /two/ is annoying
- anybody who believes that the three (one in Ghaza) will ever get back alive, needs to keep taking the medicine

- however, a really good way of p*ssing off combat troops, their friends, relatives and the guy running the local kebab shop, is to just write them off.

Think about it, UK and USA troops are daily shipped back from Iran and Afghanistan in bodybags. If an environmentalista even muttered a word about CO2, people would trade in their hybrids for Hummers.

It is a form of double-think, but without it the system would fall apart.

[dropzone]

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with the leadup to this war as I thought, and if I was wrong I blame the pro-terrorist, anti-semitic, American media for not informing me enough. ;) The OP actually WAS, though, about the expendability of soldiers and recent events only triggered it. It was not my intent to start yet another Lebanon thread.

An aside, though I've probably told this before: In college my wife had a friend just back from Israel who told glowing stories of life on a kibbutz. Wife was all set to go back with her when, at ten AM on the first Tuesday of the month, the tornado sirens got their monthly test.

Her friend screamed, "Where's the shelter? WHERE'S THE FUCKING SHELTER?!?!?

Wife didn't go to live on a kibbutz.

[Common Tater]

NPR did a segment on the U.S. military, an interview (someone schlepping their book no doubt) which posits that the "antiwar" movement, oddly enough, has actually made the American military much more lethal - because of political pressure, (casualties being a bad thing, obviously) training has improved, medical care is in many cases second to none, equipment has improved, after-action-review of tactics is quickly performed, and the kill-ratio ratcheted upward. Hm. I have a book in my personal library entitled "They Were Expendable" picked up golly knows where, stamped by the library as "Obsolete" no less, which gives a harrowing account of pacific area combat during World War II.