[Closed] Would you want the Americans to rescue you?

Forgive the ill informed arm chair analysis.
1 We were not there.
2 Everybody who was there was operating in the dark and under fire and probably genuinely at risk of imminent unpleasantness.
3 The US soldiers probably wanted to save the Hostage and also survive themselves.
4 A time may have come when a soldier found himself in a situation where he had to throw a grenade or die or allow his colleagues to die.
5 That soldier may not have known where exactly the hostage was or may even had information that led him to believe the grenade was going nowhere near her or may have come to the perfectly legitimate view that the only way he or his colleagues could live was to throw the grenade .
6 First accounts of complex and confused events are often inaccurate and always incomplete.
7 The people who created the sequence of events that ended with her tragic death were the kidnappers.
8 I'd sooner take my chances being rescued by the Americans than sit it out with the kidnappers who may or may not be Taliban who may or may not kill me on YouTube and who may well sell me on to even more nasty individuals.

Forgive the ill informed arm chair analysis.
[b]1 We were not there.[/b]

That opening "point" kind of ruins the rest of your guesswork and makes a mockery of your "ill informed" comment.

1. - Of course,
2. - Yes, but with night vision
3. - Goes without saying
4. & 5. - Or they defaulted to their normal room clearance practice of fragmentation grenade(s) before entry when they should have used stun grenades ???
6. - Yes
7. - Yes
8. - Wouldn't we all.

I'm just puzzled by the implication that a conventional grenade was used in a hostage situation...

I'm just puzzled by the implication that a conventional grenade was used in a hostage situation...

Indeed, but as we (includes BBC defence correspondent) are all armchair warriors - what do we know / why should we comment?

I don't think you need to be in the military to ask questions about why a fragmentation grenade was thrown into a room with a possible hostage - apart from the fact that that is what they normally do?

From what has been posted above, many have commented on UK forces views of US forces (eg getting them out of sticky situations etc). What I have been told is that US (regular) forces do things very very well "by the book", but absolutely do not question "the book" (and from relatives living in the US, this could be used as a sweeping generalisation for the way things are done in the US). By contrast, initiative instilled in all ranks is a quality that UK infantry units rightly pride themselves on.

Well if "the book" said "throw a frag grenade into a room possibly holding the hostage you are out to rescue" then perhaps it needs a wee bit of editing.

Well if "the book" said "throw a frag grenade into a room possibly holding the hostage you are out to rescue" then perhaps it needs a wee bit of editing.

Agreed, but we don't know if this is what happened.

If however, the book says 'under no circumstances use frag grenades in a hostage situation as they tend to lob shards of white hot metal in random directions' then what?

Gung ho or not, seems a bit harsh to discipline the soldier concerned

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/linda-norgrove-us-commando-disciplinary ]SEAL to be disciplined...[/url]

Seems a bit harsh to get killed because somebody's throwing around indiscriminate weapons. Then again that's more the fault of the command not setting out correct RoE - though as handy as it might be to have some minion to hang the blame on, if you check you'll find he's being disciplined for being economical with the truth, not for throwing the grenade.

Do you think the journalist missed the irony in:

Landing the Seals some distance away and creeping of the compound on foot was impossible. There was nowhere flat to set down for miles around.

The only realistic option was for the US special forces to descend on the target compound out of the night sky, sliding down ropes

I find it hard to believe the Seals would have been so daft not to consider the idea of sliding down ropes somewhere else before creeping up, had that been a good option. Or am I being unfair to the journo, and the Seals really are that thick?

Seems a bit harsh to get killed because somebody's throwing around indiscriminate weapons

You're right, it's full of harsh - like that war thing or something

Supposed to be a very mountainous and forested area - and both US and UK have said that intelligence sources indicated the need for an urgent rescue attempt, so direct assault may well have been the only option...

That said, the report linked above suggests that the op was pretty much done and succesful before the grenade was thrown. Sounds like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Pretty grim story, but hindsight is 20/20 vision no?

I read that Guardian article as the soldier is being disciplined for withholding the fact that he threw a grenade, not that he threw a grenade in the first place. The use of the weapon should have come out in the debrief.

That said, the report linked above suggests that the op was pretty much done and succesful before the grenade was thrown. Sounds like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

PLOPS (Particularly Loud and Obnoxious Phonetic Spellers)? Shoddy work? Surely not! Wasn't the highest ranking US military person to die in combat during WWII killed by his own side?

An outlaw country (after refusing to recognise the UN's World Court), professing to be civilised yet still executing people and mutilating the genitals of children, the sooner we make a clean break from them the better.