[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I am saying is that the policy should be we either bring everyone home by any means we can regardless of whether they are a Senator or the guy working the drive through window at McDonald’s or we never negotiate to bring anyone. Amounts, prisoner exchange, etc… are just the details specific to each event. The overriding principle, imo, is we should go for everyone. No one left behind.
I am not for the government calculating worth in most cases.[/quote]
This was brought up but I’m too lazy to see if it fit within this context, but do you think the efforts to get people back should change based on whether they put themselves in that situation or not? Like say a reporter vs a vet?[/quote]
I don’t think the effort should change. The situations are pretty different though.
The no one is left behind mantra is very much a military one. I admit I’m not sure how that would apply to a person intentionally and freely entering Pakistan, for example, and being captured by a terrorist group. [/quote]
So assume 3 good men die in the effort to bring back people in the following situations:
a) A deserter that “joined” the enemy
b) A reporter captured by the enemy
c) A defector that suddenly realized the media wasn’t “a grand Jewish conspiracy and America wasn’t the worlds greatest evil” and doesn’t want to be a terrorist anymore.
d) A pilot shot down over enemy lines
Was the price of 3 men worth it for all of them? Are their any worth more than those 3 men? Are they any not worth those men’s lives?[/quote]
These example are tough because they aren’t black and white situations nor are they easily comparable, imo, but I’ll try to answer.
If we know A & C are deserters / defectors (This is an indisputable fact) than no I don’t think any effort should be made to bring them home. As far as I’m concerned they’re the enemy now. If C can be an asset to the war effort than efforts can be made to bring him back as a source of intelligence, but not because he’s an American.
The reporter is a tough one. He / she voluntarily went into a dangerous situation. Like I previously said, I think almost all military personnel would voluntarily put themselves in harms way to get a reporter, in this situation back, and that could result in the death of 3 good men. Protecting America and Americans is kind of the point of having us in uniform, imo. It’s really the only point, imo.
The pilot is easy. We don’t leave our military men behind, period. I’m confident 100% of real military personnel would voluntarily risk their life to get the pilot back. The difference, aside from one being a civilian and the other being in the service, is the pilot has no say in their orders. A pilot, like every other service member, has to follow orders, which can put them in harms way. Sure, they’re volunteers, but unlike the reporter they can’t back-out, nor should they be able to.
So to answer your question, no, I guess the price of 3 men is not worth it in all 3 scenarios. I think a lot that has more to do with the actions of the individuals in the scenarios more so than a policy or principles issue though.
My issue is not so much about the decision of whether to go after a person or not. My issue is with the government deciding what we’re willing to give up in order to get the person back after that decision is made. I don’t think a pilot is worth more than a U.S. Senator and I don’t think a U.S. Senator is worth more than a french fry engineer. Giving the government carte blanche to determine the value of life is a slippery slope I for one do not want to slip on. I can already see the ramifications in other areas, specifically healthcare.