Leave no man behind?

Cianos

While watching a war film the other night myself and my friends got into a bit of a debate.

The film (Black hawk down) was centred around the 'leave no man behind' principle.

In the film while attempting to rescue a couple of trapped soldiers, many more lose their lives in the rescue effort.

I held the view that from a command point of view, if a rescue attempt is deemed too risky, it is better to preserve the lives of your men by not sending them on an audacious mission.

The others however stood by the 'leave no man behind' ideal in that no matter what the risks are you simply must go back.

But as a commander, if I was advised that in order to rescue 2 men, I'd have an expected loss of 10 men, I think it is worse to send these men out knowing the risks involved. ie, save 10 lives rather than 2.

My friends argued that there's always a chance that no one would lose their lives going back. This is true of course. But if the same scenario was encountered 100's of times (as it would from the perspective of those high in command), the 'expected loss' would eventually even itself out.

I know it may seem cold and harsh not to attempt a rescue, and most would willingly go back to try save their fellow soldiers. But this is why you have a chain of command in the military...so that tough decisions can be made objectively in the interests of the team as a whole.

What are your thoughts?

seamus

It's a tough one to call.

Say five men were captured by a ruthless enemy force. They're tortured constantly, given the bare minimum of food and generally living in horrendous conditions.

Would you prefer that those five men endured months of torture and mutilation, or that five other men were killed while the original five men were being rescued?

If on the other hand, I knew that the men were held in confined, yet generally liveable conditions in a POW camp, then I would see no reason to risk the lives of other men to go in and get them.

Beruthiel

If you are in the army and you knew that the chances of no one coming to save you should anything happen, would you go on the mission in the first place?

Gurgle

Beruthiel wrote:

If you are in the army and you knew that the chances of no one coming to save you should anything happen, would you go on the mission in the first place?

Generally, once you've signed up you don't get to turn down the missions. Thats why they call them 'orders' rather than 'suggestions'.

In a 'civilized' war, you could put down your gun & raise a white flag if you're left behind. Off you go to a POW camp until a prisoner exchange at a later date.

Beruthiel

Gurgle wrote:

Generally, once you've signed up you don't get to turn down the missions. Thats why they call them 'orders' rather than 'suggestions'.

I understand that Private Pile

bonkey

Gurgle wrote:

Generally, once you've signed up you don't get to turn down the missions.

Would you be more or less likely to sign up knowing that your fellow troops would do all in their power to rescue one of their own, or knowing that "army" effectively meant "you're own your own, except when it comes to being told what to do"?

Or, if you prefer, having joined the army, would you be more likely to want to move to a specialist force which moved heaven and earth to look after its own, or one which took the dirtiest jobs but treated their soldiers as a disposable resource just like ammunition?

I would submit that for any "elite" group (such as the rangers who have the "no man" motto and on whom Blackhawk Down centred), such a policy is essential in order to maintain morale and interest.

In a 'civilized' war, you could put down your gun & raise a white flag if you're left behind. Off you go to a POW camp until a prisoner exchange at a later date.

Even in a so-called civilized war, troop units such as the Rangers are the ones chosen to do the missions where this is least likely to be a viable option.

Manic Moran

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055042348 on this week's demonstration of the opinion of the Royal Marines and British Army on the concept. They risk about $60million in equipment and six lives in order to go find someone who was most likely already dead.

As a commander, I think it's very much an issue of 'chance of success' as opposed to 'chance of further death.' If I send ten men after two bodies, and nine men and three bodies come back, it's worth it. If the attempt is made with the knowledge that we're going in for no likely improvement (eg ten men go to get two bodies, those two bodies come back, but only nine men, leaving one behind), then it's a fool's errand. Remember the old saw that people don't fight for King and Country, they fight for the person with them. Not leaving someone behind would be an integral part of that bond. Plus there's also that little bit that if I got killed, I think it would be nice that my family had something to bury and would hope that my buddies would try to make that happen.

NTM

Cianos

bonkey wrote:

Would you be more or less likely to sign up knowing that your fellow troops would do all in their power to rescue one of their own, or knowing that "army" effectively meant "you're own your own, except when it comes to being told what to do"?

Or, if you prefer, having joined the army, would you be more likely to want to move to a specialist force which moved heaven and earth to look after its own, or one which took the dirtiest jobs but treated their soldiers as a disposable resource just like ammunition?

I would submit that for any "elite" group (such as the rangers who have the "no man" motto and on whom Blackhawk Down centred), such a policy is essential in order to maintain morale and interest.


Even in a so-called civilized war, troop units such as the Rangers are the ones chosen to do the missions where this is least likely to be a viable option.

So you think that the policy should be based around what would encourage the most sign ups to the army? And not be in the interest of preserving as much human life as possible?

From a recruitment point of view there has to be a balance obviously, but what about morally? Whhere do you draw the line? How many lives put at risk is too much to save one other life?

Manic Moran

Cianos wrote:

So you think that the policy should be based around what would encourage the most sign ups to the army? And not be in the interest of preserving as much human life as possible?

Partially, but as much to maintain the spirit of those who are already in. Those esprit de corps items don't really have much effect on people who aren't in yet, as they haven't been 'indoctrinated'

Whhere do you draw the line? How many lives put at risk is too much to save one other life?

No line drawn. If you think you can bring everybody back, alive or dead, carry it out. If you think it's likely you will not succeed, don't waste a single life.

NTM

tallaght01

I reckon the guys would want to go back after their comrades. Should that make a difference? I say go for it. In theory I'd send the boys back out there to get their mates.

But I've never been in a combat situation, so what would I know. Although I did work in A+E in Johannesburg, which is roughly comparable :P

walrusgumble

i remember watching one of those ww2 docs on the history channel and one of them said that where possible it is the duty of a soldier who has been taken captive to attempt to escape from detention and try and make their way back.(easier siad than done of course)

InFront

Totally depends on the situation. It's a bit like asking if someone would run into a burning house to save a relative: maybe.

But that's the boring answer. If I thought there was a chance a fellow soldier was still alive, and there was even a remote chance he was alive, then yes i hope that I would.
because presumably if you're fighting for this cause you must believe in it completely. Inasmuch as you are devoting your life to this cause, and willingly putting it on the line, you must surely put it on the line one more time for a fellow soldier.

How can any wartime death be worth risking death moreso than risking death for your comerade in that war? If you can put your life on the line for the cause, you must surely put it on the line for someone who upholds that cause.

walrusgumble

anyway, in situations like war, were soldiers develope a bond, comadre and friendship and are encouraged to look out for each other, wouldn't it be almost human nature for those soldiers to want to save their college, despite orders telling them otherwise.

i am prob gonna get crucified here if this sounds a bit daft or very obvious, but i am sure there have been many moments that were similar to say saving private ryan ( i know black hawk was based on a true sory, forget if saving private ... was)

oh ye, remember that US privat sarah whatshername (really sorry if that is ignorant) around 1998-2000ish a team of marines out in afganistan or iraq (nearly sure it was afganistan) bent over backwards to save her. now maybe it was the fact that she was a women (even though plenty are in the army particulariy our own so there should be no shock) but all of a sudden she was declared a hereo and there were talks of a film being produced about her time in captivity (sarah michelle geller was to play leading role). where was the mention of the people who saved her. nought, and she becomes a hereo because she apparently (word from a few pi** off colleagues) stupidly got taken prisoner and sustained injuries.

surely there would be at least some attempt to save a fellow soldier. although decisions not to rescue maybe covered up this fact would often leak to the public (who's support is needed depending on the cause) and such leak could cause political mayham. that or i am talking absolute nonsense (ha loads of ye dying to type yes lol)