E. Marquez,E.Marquez wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:01 amAgain, when you have the on the ground experience of cleaning up collateral damage, I'll find your opinion valid, agree or disagree is another thing all togethertwomillenium wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:43 am Let me know how you feel when you lose a dear friend or loved one at something like Bengazi.
Let me know how you feel when you lose a dear friend of loved one in an attack like 9/11. Have you forgot?
And while I likely shouldn't, I'll respond to your ad hominem attack.
I did lose someone in 9/11,several someones in Iraq, several dozen in Afghanistan, and no I have not forgotten 9/11. I've also been on the ground in Panama, Iraq twice, Afghanistan once and yet, I feel the way I do about minimizing collateral damage and disagree completely with "Kill them all and let god sort them out."
Clearly your opinion differs, to each his own.
I appreciate your service, mourn your losses, and echo your sentiment. I was never tasked with a post-strike assessment, but have seen the carnage of what an IED does to our fellow man; I won't describe that here. While I was fortunate to have not lost a U.S. teammate, we did suffer loss of our partners in more than one theater. I have attended memorials for numerous other operators, some of whom I knew, while others were members of our Group that I hadn't met. I don't say any of this to tout my own service, only to say I've been in the ring and both understand and agree with your perspective.
There are times when civilian casualties and collateral damage to infrastructure cannot be avoided, but it is always in our interest to avoid when possible, or mitigate the effects of it when unavoidable. Aside from the effects at an individual level, there are operational and strategic level considerations.
The R9X is one tool in a pretty large tool chest of options. Compared to the economic cost of another 9/11 or the deployment of major combat forces, it's a pretty cost-effective measure to employ.