Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(94,696 posts)
8. I find this article unconvincing
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:16 PM
Jun 2014

Apart from the one soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb, the other troops listed as casualties are just listed as part of his unit. there were certainly other operations in the area where they were deployed and their position was under frequent and sometimes deadly attack.

If you click on the article referenced by the one you posted you see that the soldiers quoted are blaming the Sgt. for casualties suffered as a result of an attack that occurred against their U.S.-Afghan outpost where they were conducting joint operations apart from the search for the missing soldier.

The charge by these troops is that their outpost wouldn't have been attacked successfully if they weren't shorthanded by the contingent out looking for the missing soldier.

I have to ask . . . did they think this American was worth rescuing, or not? As a poster above stated, the mantra from conservatives like Cruz was that military force SHOULD have been employed to rescue him. I'm not sure that griping about the risks involved in recovering him square with those criticisms that he was somehow unworthy of being rescued or recovered.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is there ANY evidence tha...»Reply #8