I've been chewing on the issue of our Riverine Sailors surrendering, being put on their knees with their hands behind their backs, paraded before cameras, the Officer in Charge giving a public apology and the excuses that have been trotted out with the White House and Pentagon settling on a navigation error.
I've also read all the excuses made, the ideas that this is no big deal and that they acted properly.
Sorry, but I can't agree. The reason why this bothers so many of us is because these guys (and a gal) were operating in the Middle East. It can be assumed that they were fully armed. It can be reasoned that even if they didn't want "the fight" they could have easily outpaced the RHIBs that the Iranians used to capture them.
But the bigger issue to me is the what if? What if this wasn't Iranians but ISIS in disguise? Putting that aside what if the Iranian hardliners carried the day? What happened to never surrendering if you have the capability to fight?
This whole thing strikes me as wrong and I won't apologize for feeling that way. More ominously I posted a briefing from a shop in the Marine Corps giving the intel situation on ISIS. One of the slides carried the caption "why do they sit there" with a photo of some ISIS bastard about to murder his prisoners. So the question still needs to be answered. Why didn't Riverines fight or flee? Surrender should have been the LAST option.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.