How That Massive Battle Between US Troops And Russian Mercenaries In Syria Went Down

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Zaphod58

At the very moment those troops came under fire no matter what president was in power the choice to defend themselves was up to them. Not TPTB. They did what they had to do as they would have no matter what.

Yea, and under Obama those who made the decision without permission would have had their ass up for Court Martial! At least Trump has given the military permission to fight back with out all the red tape asking for permission to defend themselves.....

a reply to: seeker1963

So if you came under fire by a larger group of individuals and your immediate command says to fire back you would wait for a higher commander to give permission? No....that is not the way it is done. If they had waited for higher command they would have died.
Now I will say that Trump did good on giving command of these types of matter to the generals but givin the situation the outcome would have been the same.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Zaphod58

At the very moment those troops came under fire no matter what president was in power the choice to defend themselves was up to them. Not TPTB. They did what they had to do as they would have no matter what.

Nope, it would have taken days of red tape, politician hand wringing for any assistance. Those troops would have been left on their own and got "Bill Clinton'd" like in Somalia.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: infolurker
I'm heartbroken over the 300 families who have been decimated by this horrible action. Fathers and sons never to return home. Eff war.

Russian Mercenaries and jihadists? Give me a break.

F#ck war yes but these guys love it.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It would not have taken days for those troops to decide to defend themselves. C’mon man this is cut and dry.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seeker1963

So if you came under fire by a larger group of individuals and your immediate command says to fire back you would wait for a higher commander to give permission? No....that is not the way it is done. If they had waited for higher command they would have died.
Now I will say that Trump did good on giving command of these types of matter to the generals but givin the situation the outcome would have been the same.

Personally I wouldn't, however we are living in a different world than the one I grew up in? I got out of the military in the early 80's and I saw at that time the Progressive BS creeping in. Honestly can't imagine what it's like to be in the military in todays "enlightened society". Can't imagine the horror on recruits singing about Jody banging their girl friends...Oh wait, can't do that anymore.......

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Yes, they had the right to shoot back, but they have these things call Rules Of Engagement. They have the right to defend themselves but under the Rules Of Engagement, they didn't have the right to use everything they had in the cabinet to defend themselves. There were times when air support clearly identified people with weapons, but since they weren't positively identified as hostile, they weren't allowed to shoot. The first quote is verbatim from General McChrystal under the old ROE:

“If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy… if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don’t know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so.”

A local man responded to the Americans’ request for a place to bed down for the night by taking them to an empty compound that was rigged with explosives. Although a bomb-sniffing dog and mine detector swept the place before platoon members entered, an IED placed by the doorway exploded near a group inside, gravely wounding one soldier. A second went off four minutes later, injuring another.

Because military rules dictate that any soldier within 160 ft. (50 m) of a blast must head back to base for evaluation, the entire platoon had to be removed from the battlefield, putting the clearing mission in jeopardy.

“If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. “We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can’t see them,” Brooks added, with disgust.

www.captainsjournal.com...

As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.

His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment. There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.

But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command. While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

Four men emerged from the car. American soldiers dismounted from their MRAPs, and with one man in the lead, weapons raised, they ordered the Iraqis to surrender.

Those who were in the TOC that night initially thought someone had stepped on a land mine. Watching on video feed, they saw the screen go white, then black. For several agonizing minutes, no one knew what had happened.

Then the call came. Suicide bomber. One of the suspects had self-detonated, and Americans were hurt. One badly — very badly. Despite desperate efforts to save his life, he died just before he arrived at a functioning aid station. Another casualty of the rules of engagement.

www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: Allaroundyou

And so they decide to fire back .. and no air support arrives .. probably not such a good outcome.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

No, they didn't have to go up to higher to shoot back, but if you call for air support, or artillery, then higher is on the net and can stand them down so you don't get that support that you need.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It would not have taken days for those troops to decide to defend themselves. C’mon man this is cut and dry.

i believe that they're not only talking about the surrounded troops, of course they will retaliate and defend themselves immediately, its the Air support that made the difference and that brings us back to the point which is that it didnt take that long to give the command to send Air support

a reply to: Allaroundyou

We're not talking about them defending themselves, we're talking about the support that they received. Those aircraft and that artillery that made all the difference in the fight. Under the old Rules Of Engagement they would have had to get permission from higher to use them, and if there was the risk of killing civilians, they would have to withdraw if possible.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It would not have taken days for those troops to decide to defend themselves. C’mon man this is cut and dry.

Did they have AC 130 gunships, B52,s, F22 stealth fighters, F15Eagles, Apache gunship helicopters in their back pockets? That is what came in unstoppable waves.

They were only 30 guys at an outpost surrounded by 500 who had battle tanks, artillery, mortars, armored fighting vehicles etc.

Trump allows Mattis to use the full power of the US military to respond on his judgement. Obama was a loser who ran the military afraid to shoot back.

a reply to: Zaphod58

WOW well then I will stand down from this one. The only point I was trying to point out is the matter was put in those soldiers hands. Those personal had one option and one option only, to stay alive.
But man I am out gunned on this topic.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

No, the problem is you are trying to simplify the situation to put the outcome in the hands of those 30 soldiers. The problem with doing so is that there were many other pieces in play to keep those soldiers alive which those 30 soldiers had zero control over.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

And those soldiers couldn't have done what they did without that air support, and artillery support that they received. It wasn't down to just them, and you know it. You can try to slice it any way you want, but without support, and a lot of it, they would have been hurt if not over run.

a reply to: schuyler

And you're heart-broken?

Try reading again. I said that I was heartbroken for the families. They didn't attack anyone.

a reply to: Wide-EyesTheir families don't love it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
WTF??? Another one. Look, the families didn't attack anyone. They are the ones who will be suffering.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
WTF??? Another one. Look, the families didn't attack anyone. They are the ones who will be suffering.

Straw man, the thread isn't about some mercenaries mother's sister's cousin's divorced twin daughter.

Sheeesh, talk about reaching for heartstrings.

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: infolurker


Thank God Air Support didn't have to wait for permission from the State Department to provide back up? Sure as hell refreshing to know we have a President that allows our troops to kick ass and take names later?

Of course we had air and ground support in Syria an active combat zone, something we didnt have in Libya which wasnt an active combat zone at the time of the attack. Do you even know where Benghazi is and how far support was from it? You should sit down with google maps and the answer should smack you in the face really quickly.

Yeah great f'n planning by the obama admin.

WTF?!

I am sorry but, what? We cant have US military in every corner of the world at any given moment. Especially because diplomatic missions happen all over the world all the time even in less then friendly countries.

...we kinda can.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
en.m.wikipedia.org...

..... and its kinda the most important aspect of our military
en.m.wikipedia.org...

There ya again, screwing up a perfectly, uhh, reasonable conversation with facts.

Sorry. I generally try not to do that. Ill just go back to looking at this map of the navy fleets deployment during Benghazi that shows 200 miles from Benghazi a destroyer that carries 2 helicopters that can travel 500 miles at 160 mph.....

www.judicialwatch.org...

Not to mention the jets based on strategic bases in that region.