[/QUOTE]
All I asked for was an example of Americans being left behind because there wasn’t enough intelligence to go and help them.
Shouldn’t be too hard to find if it’s standard military procedure to gather intelligence after you get a distress call and not go and help until you’ve got that intelligence.
I thought that was strange as well, until I realized that we are in the Pit. So Lobohan can feel free to call me whatever he wants, it actually adds spice to the debate.:)_
I disproved him ten ways from Sunday, silly-billy. In real time they didn’t have the intel to move. We have it now though, since it is after. Sometimes you know more about a situation after, rather than during.
Obama gave an order to do what is possible to save them. The generals thought that they couldn’t send anyone in because they didn’t have the intel. Sending soldiers in to die would be even worse. Remember that our soldiers are Americans too. Throwing them into a situation blind isn’t something smart or laudable.
That’s a fact. So you can pretend it didn’t happen that way if it makes you feel better. But like religion, it’s ultimately just lying to yourself because the lies are comfortable.
I gave you evidence that this is a standard procedure. The Republican SoD and active generals think this is the general procedure.
Finding another situation that mirrors Benghazi isn’t necessary, right? Since we know the standard procedures. Don’t we?
Do you think that Gates, the current SoD, and the Generals are lying?
Why? Because you saw Blackhawk Down?
When it’s their guys, they go in guns blazing, without hesitation.
you have not given any real world evidence. Real world evidence would be either examples of past incidents where people were left behind, or documentation that this was standard procedure before Benghazi. Or statements. Otherwise, it sounds like a post hoc explanation to cover up their failure.
Hey, I could be wrong, but it smells fishy to me because this is the first time I’ve ever heard of help waiting to get intelligence. Waiting for intelligence to send troops into a situation where they will be initiative hostilies, such as the bin Laden raid, makes perfect sense. Waiting for intelligence when people are under fire and dying is entirely new to me. But hey, maybe domestic first responders should also go by that code. Would save a lot of first responders’ lives if they didn’t take any action until gathering intelligence.
Here’s what I’ve actually read about that sort of thing: when units come under fire and need backup, the backup is sent: immediately. While en route, there is a furious effort to gather intelligence so they don’t go in blind, plus the units under fire do the best they can to provide what they know. However, one way or another, our boys aren’t getting left behind. Ever. In case you had forgotten, that’s been the Army’s motto since Vietnam. And it certainly applies to their own. Apparently it does not apply to civilians.
Who, the insurgents? You want to follow their tactical playbook?
Again, you are utterly wrong. SoD Gates, the current SoD, and a working general say you’re wrong.
You demand that you are right, because of some bullshit stuff you heard somewhere. In a particular battle, when already engaged, I’m sure people aren’t left behind unless it’s absolutely necessary.
However, sending soldiers in blind, when the enemies could be ten guys or ten thousand guys, is a bad fucking idea.
And it’s dishonest for you to pretend different.
It is a bad idea. So is running into a burning tower without knowing if it will collapse. So is sending immediate backup if our boys are under fire and outnumbered in Afghanistan(or previously, in Iraq or Mogadishu). But they do it.
They do it because no one gets left behind. Ever. This is the first time since Vietnam that calls for help were refused from Americans under fire.
Hmm, I wonder why I wouldn’t be so quick to accept the post hoc explanations of the people that failed to act? You are one gullible sucker.
SoD Gates is a republican. Is he lying?
I don’t have a list of every military engagement the US has had. But I do have acting generals and two SoD who say this is the standard procedure.
Yet you keep pretending that your ignorance is as valuable as their knowledge. When someone presents you with high confidence facts, you should back down.
What other similar instances do you know of? Specifically protracted attacks with no, or very little intel in an unstable area where troops need to be flown in.
That something smells fishy to you doesn’t mean it is. It means that your ignorance is coloring your olfactory bulbs.
Have you ever seen a mass shooting? Do the police just run into the building, or do they gather intel?
See above. Again, your ignorance isn’t evidence.
If soldiers are already deployed, by definition they have intel about the area. Some guards hiding under desks hoping to not be killed by mortars aren’t the same thing.
That is some stupid shit you read somewhere. It isn’t a true thing. Do you think that every request for backup is granted? What is it like to be so fucking stupid?
No, I’m just amenable to facts. You just want to defend your ignorance because accepting correction would undermine the stupid shit you believe.
Nevertheless, the fact that some military people say it doesn’t make it true. Especially since I’ve never heard it before, and neither have you.
Here’s what I have heard: Leave no man behind.
I also know there wasn’t a single case in Iraq or afghanistan where a unit was just abandoned to their fate.
Not dragging a fallen comrade into cover isn’t the same thing as sending in dozens of troops into a blind situation.
Again, you are just bleating ignorance and pretending it is as good as knowledge.
Cite? And a reputable source, please.
How can I cite a negative? Show me where a unit was left behind. Such an event would be a mass casualty event, so it shouldn’t be hard to find. But I’ll save you the trouble: you won’t find any. I followed the wars extremely closely and I can recite off the top of my head all the incidents where more than 5 soldiers died. None of them involved a unit getting obliterated because they wanted for backup. The only example that comes close isn’t even us, it was some Scots trapped and surrounded during the Sadr uprising. They mostly got out alive despite no ammunition because they’re Scots. In other words, they ran out of ammo and broke out with a crazy bayonet charge.
The Sadr uprising is a great example of a surprise attack that caught everyone unawares. Yet our forces rushed around doing what they had to do, rather than retreating to their bases and hanging our allies out to dry. Of course, we had a different President then…
Think about this slowly. If a unit is somewhere and is under attack, they likely have good intel on the situation. So it is probably more likely that intelligence wouldn’t be the deciding factor, it would probably be logistics. Not everyone gets air cover when they want it.
As I said, you’ve got the burden of proof here, since you are asserting, against the word of experts (two SoD and at least one sitting general) that they are wrong.
So, find me an analogous situation, with utterly blind intel, in an unstable nation, of a small group under artillery fire.
Then, I suppose, you’d have to say they had the intel they needed.
To repeat once again, a Republican SoD, a current SoD and a sitting general say you are full of shit. But no, neckbeard internet sensation adaher thinks those guys don’t know what they’re talking about.
Yes, logistics can be a problem, but that’s not leaving people behind, that’s just an inability to get help there in time. Waiting for intel while people are under fire is another story altogether. And frankly, even if the military did do it, they wouldn’t tell the people under fire that. They can deny air support if there is none to be had, but I find it hard to believe that they’d tell troops, “Yeah, you’re on your own until we figure out what you’re up against.”
If it was that cut and dried, Congress wouldn’t be demanding answers.
That would be one hell of an assumption given that everyone was running around like chickens with their heads cut off that day. but the military never threw up their hands and said, “Everyone back to base, we don’t know what’s going on!” They did the opposite. They deployed as much force as they could muster.
There was no way they could have known what they were up against, and it showed, with one of the highest death tolls of US soldiers during the war for a single day. And yet no one was left behind.
If they sent 32 special forces soldiers and their transport was shot down by a SAM, what would you say? What if when they landed there was a rogue militia group with hundreds of soldiers and heavy weapons in the area?
The reason this rule exists, is because the real world is more complicated than your ignorant view would suggest.
To reiterate, a Republican SoD, and a sitting SoD and General in charge of the soldiers in question think you’re wrong.
You can only assert, based on a catchprase that those people are incorrect. That’s horseshit.
Congress is ginning up this for political gain. Darryl Issa is a hardcore partisan. You can’t honestly believe what you just said.
A warzone with a base adjacent, satellite coverage, and intel on the movements and capabilities of forces in the area isn’t the same thing as a backwater diplomatic installation being attacked via artillery by forces unknown.
My cite is as follows;
[QUOTE=adaher]
This is the first time since Vietnam that calls for help were refused from Americans under fire.
[/QUOTE]