Saving Journalists?

[Wezil]

You keep dodging.

"successfully extract"

Last time I'll ask - At what cost?

[Lonestar]

You keep dodging.

"successfully extract"

Last time I'll ask - At what cost?

I'm...not sure what you mean? I define a mission success as "getting the person(s) out alive". If some of our guys die doing it, well, that's unfortunate but ultimately it's what they were paid to do.

Our military is paid to protect our citizens. This is not a difficult concept to wrap your head around.

[Wezil]

Still a non-answer. "some of our guys"

So "successful" is getting your guy out. Some (presumably any number since you refused to answer my question) of your guys killed, or even civilians (as the case in the OP) dying is okay so long as you get the "target" out safely?

[Lonestar]

Still a non-answer. "some of our guys"

So "successful" is getting your guy out. Some (presumably any number since you refused to answer my question) of your guys killed, or even civilians (as the case in the OP) dying is okay so long as you get the "target" out safely?

How is it a non-answer? You just repeated back what I said!

[Wezil]

I wanted to make sure I was understanding you.

It's a non-answer because you refused to say you would accept any and all casualties, including those of innocent civilians, to see it done (I had to say it for you).

Quite frankly I think your position is absurd. I see now why you wanted to get away from the NK example.

[Lonestar]

I wanted to make sure I was understanding you.

It's a non-answer because you refused to say you would accept any and all casualties, including those of innocent civilians, to see it done (I had to say it for you).

Quite frankly I think your position is absurd. I see now why you wanted to get away from the NK example.

Well, there's a difference between "some dudes out in the mountains at these grid coordinates" to "fighting our way into the DPRK and flailing about hoping we can find them before the Norks kill the hostages/rescue mission". In one case we know where the hostage is and stand a reasonable chance of a successful extraction. In the other we don't.

[Wezil]

Yep, I'm with you.

If (for the sake of example) NK was holding a US citizen and you knew where they were being held then the Special Forces are on their way.

[Lonestar]

Yep, I'm with you.

If (for the sake of example) NK was holding a US citizen and you knew where they were being held then the Special Forces are on their way.

If I thought it could be pulled off without the nearby DPRK infantry regiment killing everyone, sure.

[Wezil]

Nope, sorry. I asked for the last time what your limits were. I'm not going backward in this discussion.

The only condition you attached was that the abductee be "successfully extracted" which we clarified as getting him/her out alive.

[Felch]

Rescues are good. They protect Americans and help disrupt and destroy enemy cells. That's assuming that we know where the hostages are being kept and can reasonably expect success. It's unfortunate that the fixer died, and the Brit commando, but that's the fault of the kidnappers, not the journalist.

[olla86]

[q]
When a reporter (who was kidnapped before) ignores repeated warnings not to go into an area because of security concerns and shocker of shockers gets kidnapped, should he be left to his fate?

I think it should be left to his fate because it is his personal responsibility

[David Floyd]

When a reporter (who was kidnapped before) ignores repeated warnings not to go into an area because of security concerns and shocker of shockers gets kidnapped, should he be left to his fate?

Not necessarily, but I don't think the military has a duty to rescue the journalist in this situation.

Also, what's so wrong with banning journalists from war zones? It can be argued that journalists have cost us at least one war (Vietnam) that we were winning militarily. I'm all for freedom of the press, but I fail to see how the 1st Amendment applies overseas, in a war zone.

For those of you who are vets (preferably combat vets), is it true that the military tends to hate journalists?

[Wezil]

If US law doesn't apply how can you "ban" them? Shoot on sight?

[David Floyd]

No, that's extreme. However, I think the UCMJ should apply to anyone entering a combat zone.

Also, Lonestar, you say the primary duty is to protect citizens. But what if, in the course of saving one life, you place many more lives at risk? Or what about, in the case of the US government refusing to print German warnings against sailing on the Lusitania because it was carrying munitions to Britain (which it was), in the case where protecting lives runs contrary to US foreign policy? Where do you draw the line?

[Wezil]

No, that's extreme.

Really?

However, I think the UCMJ should apply to anyone entering a combat zone.

That's what I was looking for.