Posted on 01/01/2007 5:36:55 AM PST by Dick Bachert
His Rules of Engagement for the mission were very restrictive. He insisted on lots of practice for the mission. He insisted on such a low risk approach, that they would not allow the best forces for the mission to be used, nor would they allocate sufficient forces. There were not enough helicopters, and the "low risk" ROEs dictated that Marine or Navy helicopters be used, rather than the Air Force ones designed for just such a mission, for fear that someone might notice the Air Force birds on the Navy carriers. He didn't allow any prepping of the battlefield, and really treated the whole thing like a stateside SWAT affair. There was no air cover provided, which all by itself is close to a criminal act.
I remember during the hostage crises discussing how we would set up a rescue mission with a guy who worked for the same company, and who I'd known when we were both Air Force officers on active duty.
Our sketchy solution. Send in the B-52s, many cells of them, bomb all the approaches to the location where the hostages were being held, plus radar sites, naval bases and air fields. The last cell, or two or three, would actually be C-141s or C-5s, with a whole bunch of airborne troops, who would drop in, rescue the hostages, and then wait for the helicopters to come get them all. It would have been a much larger mission, and it would have broken a lot more stuff and killed a lot of Iranians.
We knew that it was probably a bit too ambitious, but would never have guessed at such a mission as was actually laid on.
But even given that the mission that was laid on failed, there were no further missions, no retaliatory bombings, not even any threats to do so. No "Release them, or else".
With Ronald Reagan they knew there would be an "or else", so they released the hostages on his inauguration day. With JC, they didn't believe in "or else", rightly as it seems.
No, he sent the military to rescue the hostages, and ordered them to kill as few of the citizens of the hostage taking country as possible, even at the risk of mission failure. Which is exactly what happened.
Thank you Sir for having the courage to pen the truth.
A Very Happy New Year to you and yours.
The Air Force prides itself on feeding it's enlisted members properly.
That mess you ate in was the same one the guys who fix, fuel and load the airplanes eat at.
And yes their breakfasts are excellent.
When I was on active duty, an additional duty for us non-rated types was "Operations Duty Officer", and one of the duties was to eat a meal, usually supper, in the mess hall, which officers normally are not allowed to eat in, if the O-club is open. The purpose was quality assurance, and there was a report to file on the matter.
That all stems from the days of Curtis LeMay, when he was the first head of SAC. He knew that the highly technically trained airmen he needed for SAC would not be staying in the military if they had to eat bad food and stay in shitty quarters.
No doubt, but intentions have nothing to do with responsibility. He is responsible. OTOH, Ronald Reagan also bears some responsibility for pulling the Marines out of Lebanon after they were attacked, rather than hitting back, hard, probably at Syrian and/or Iran, but at least at Hzb'allah. Both helped teach the IslamoNazis that the US would cut and run if attacked. They found out that Texas based politicians are a little different, at least some of them.
Thanks for posting.
While living at Fort Myers, Va. and working at the Pentagon I've dealt with a few Command Sargent Majors and I find that they all knew more then nearly any other group of individuals.
They'd been there and done that and learned from doing, not just bullsh-tting. I don't know of a politician that could carry a C.S.Majors jock.
Good call sir.
Listen to you, B-52's! The hostages were being moved around. An airstrike or any major move like that would have tipped them off.
As I said before, I'm not going to argue the obvious failure of the mission. That's not the point. The point is that the author used the hostage situation to illustrate Carter's lack of spine. He was wrong. The fact that a mission, a mission that could have worked, was undertaken does not illustrate a lack of spine. The author should have used another example.
"We knew that it was probably a bit too ambitious"
Ya think?
HOOOOAH!
Well, there was that unpleasantness in Iran & the hostage thing.
There has not been one treason trial in this country for decades (I believe not since the Rosenberg's, but could be wrong). Bush is a shining example of moral impotence, but he did not start the trend. Our President has a duty to God and country to show as much courage against our domestic enemies as our boys in the field show against our foreign enemies. He also has a duty to allow them to locate and kill our enemies in the field, not forbid them from fighting the rock-chuckers, ordering them to just walk around as sniper and IED targets instead.
Bush will stand accountable before God for not buying the absolute most amount of freedom and safety for our country with most precious currency of the lives of innocent American warriors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.