“Really? Please share the details of those command decisions to withhold fire support for this engagement, who made them and where they were made from specifically? Not your opinion.”
No crap. Marine officers have their bad eggs, but fewer than any other branch (imho). If an officer receives ROE that say no artillery, then that’s the ROE. I don’t buy “bad officer” for a marine (or any branch, for that matter, but the marines in particular) until it’s proven by someone credible.
That's my point. We simply don't know the details yet. There could be all sorts of primary reasons and contributing factors as to why this incident turned out the way it did. There's alot of knee jerking going on that is baseless until the facts and conclusions are gathered.
So if you are a good officer and you know those are the ROE and that you can’t support your troops properly are you making a good decision to send your troops into harms way knowing it is likely, based on clear recent experience, that they will need support that you are no longer able to provide?
It is one thing to have a clear mission that must be executed and NOT having the assets to support your troops but it is aonther to have the assets and not be able to use them and still send troops in harms way. It is at least immoral. Is taking this decision to commit troops without support right? These scouting expeditions are not vital under these circumstances with rules of limited engagement.
At the very least, without artillery support available it seems appropriate that the mission would be dealayed until aircraft for support are brought up to a forward location.