2
2
0
The notion of leave no man behind is agreed by many to have stemmed from the Rangers and it is in their creed:
Fifth stanza of the Army Ranger creed, which states: "I shall never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy."
It is known by all know and is part of the Army's Soldier's Creed/Ethos "I will never leave a fallen comrade"
While we in the military and those were served in uniform know a lot about this and that sometimes it is impossible at the time we will fight and come find you to give your family closure, many people do not understand its true meaning. An article written states about how we will take about 500 more years to find and identify the fallen from previous wars at the pace that we are finding "recoverable" fallen. There are some lost at sea that are not considered "recoverable" for obvious reasons.
Does America as a whole believe in this as a way of life or just a motto and a punch line for justification and press conferences?
In recent days we have seen that yes we went and traded for someone as we do not leave anyone behind. Yet at the same time that is questioned as why we did nothing in Benghazi (not that we tried and failed, but we did nothing) and we have a Marine rooting in a Mexican prison with no show of public support or outcry. Are we, the few in uniform (currently and those who still wear their uniform in their hearts but left the service) the only ones who believe this is a way of life and not a catch phrase?
http://themoderatevoice.com/45543/leave-no-man-behind-65-years-later/
Fifth stanza of the Army Ranger creed, which states: "I shall never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy."
It is known by all know and is part of the Army's Soldier's Creed/Ethos "I will never leave a fallen comrade"
While we in the military and those were served in uniform know a lot about this and that sometimes it is impossible at the time we will fight and come find you to give your family closure, many people do not understand its true meaning. An article written states about how we will take about 500 more years to find and identify the fallen from previous wars at the pace that we are finding "recoverable" fallen. There are some lost at sea that are not considered "recoverable" for obvious reasons.
Does America as a whole believe in this as a way of life or just a motto and a punch line for justification and press conferences?
In recent days we have seen that yes we went and traded for someone as we do not leave anyone behind. Yet at the same time that is questioned as why we did nothing in Benghazi (not that we tried and failed, but we did nothing) and we have a Marine rooting in a Mexican prison with no show of public support or outcry. Are we, the few in uniform (currently and those who still wear their uniform in their hearts but left the service) the only ones who believe this is a way of life and not a catch phrase?
http://themoderatevoice.com/45543/leave-no-man-behind-65-years-later/
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
Sir,
I feel as though many of us live this credo and take it to heart. There are many great examples from the recent conflicts: SGT White, SPC Carter, SSG Guinta, Sergeant Meyer (went above and beyond for ANA troops as well), and those of us who are proud Engineers can not forget: SFC Paul R. Smith. These are just a few examples of those who have been honored with the highest decoration that we can present to someone for their ability and will to live by the Warrior Ethos and exemplify self-sacrifice to leave no warrior behind.
I think we can find an almost endless supply of Warriors who will sacrifice anything and everything to save their comarades in arms. Within our unit, I can think of many who I am confident would sacrifice their lives to save anyone else within the 417th. Some might surprise others, but I don't think they would be willing to let a single Soldier down when the chips were down.
Were we seem to run into the weakening of this resolve is at a higher, political level. They weigh each decision not based on the Warrior Ethos but on other, complex factors. In a perfect World, these factors would include the ability to provide support, how action may have a larger affect on the mission at hand, what danger would be present in all scenarios, and what assets exist that can meet the needs. In Benghazi, sending in SEALs, Delta, MARSOC, etc would be acceptable, but sending in the 417th may not meet the mission needs (but I guarantee we would try!). However, it seems more like the factors weighed are based more upon what will gain public favor, save face, or will accomplish a geo-political goal that ignores the needs of the nation. It becomes more self-serving than nationalist in goal. I would love to see a politician which would potentially sacrfice their reputation, their future political ambition, and their careers to make the decision that is right and supports the Nation's needs. Using Benghazi as an example, sending in the SEALs, CIA Operatives, etc may not have been the popular choice; but it may have saved lives and it would have sent the message that we will defend our sovereign territory abroad. In the wake of other Embassy attacks in Africa, our response has been weak as well, which demonstrates a way for a small force to be successful against us in a highly visible, very symbolic, lower risk operation. They can kill an entire Embassy staff and it will truly have minimal impact on the Nation as a whole. However, it will create such an outrage that the impact becomes amplified tremendously which goes to further these fringe and extremists groups profile and message. This is a victory for the insurgents. We are still talking about Benghazi, which makes the group that instigated the attack that much more powerful and relevant. We have seen the political answer to this incident and it can shake us down to our core.
Conversesly speaking, we are now seeing White House cronies appologizing for their representation of Bergdahl, but the President refuses to appologize for the actual trade and the manner in which it was perpetrated. This shows that the political win became more important than the actual situation. We have now violated one other precept that we have stood by for over a decade: we will not negotiate with terrorists. We are seeing a dramatically different POV. A Soldier that seems to have deserted and reportedly became complicit with the enemy became more valuable than those who were serving in the Embassy in Benghazi. He became more valuable than the six Soldiers who were on the search missions for him. He became a political pawn to demonstrate a new, peaceful ideology which is being attempted after several red-line threats failed to be followed through on. Am I glad that he is back in the control of the US? Absolutely, but only if an inpartial, non-politically motivated investigation is conducted to determine his true status. If he became complicit and if the reports that he sought out the Taliban are true; then his POW status is complete BS and he is an enemy combatant. The same as John Walker Lindh.
Does the Warrior Class live by the "Leave NO Man Behind" creedo. I do. I think that 99% or more of us do. Does the rest of America. I would like to think so. Do our politicians? The results seem very inconclusive at best.
I feel as though many of us live this credo and take it to heart. There are many great examples from the recent conflicts: SGT White, SPC Carter, SSG Guinta, Sergeant Meyer (went above and beyond for ANA troops as well), and those of us who are proud Engineers can not forget: SFC Paul R. Smith. These are just a few examples of those who have been honored with the highest decoration that we can present to someone for their ability and will to live by the Warrior Ethos and exemplify self-sacrifice to leave no warrior behind.
I think we can find an almost endless supply of Warriors who will sacrifice anything and everything to save their comarades in arms. Within our unit, I can think of many who I am confident would sacrifice their lives to save anyone else within the 417th. Some might surprise others, but I don't think they would be willing to let a single Soldier down when the chips were down.
Were we seem to run into the weakening of this resolve is at a higher, political level. They weigh each decision not based on the Warrior Ethos but on other, complex factors. In a perfect World, these factors would include the ability to provide support, how action may have a larger affect on the mission at hand, what danger would be present in all scenarios, and what assets exist that can meet the needs. In Benghazi, sending in SEALs, Delta, MARSOC, etc would be acceptable, but sending in the 417th may not meet the mission needs (but I guarantee we would try!). However, it seems more like the factors weighed are based more upon what will gain public favor, save face, or will accomplish a geo-political goal that ignores the needs of the nation. It becomes more self-serving than nationalist in goal. I would love to see a politician which would potentially sacrfice their reputation, their future political ambition, and their careers to make the decision that is right and supports the Nation's needs. Using Benghazi as an example, sending in the SEALs, CIA Operatives, etc may not have been the popular choice; but it may have saved lives and it would have sent the message that we will defend our sovereign territory abroad. In the wake of other Embassy attacks in Africa, our response has been weak as well, which demonstrates a way for a small force to be successful against us in a highly visible, very symbolic, lower risk operation. They can kill an entire Embassy staff and it will truly have minimal impact on the Nation as a whole. However, it will create such an outrage that the impact becomes amplified tremendously which goes to further these fringe and extremists groups profile and message. This is a victory for the insurgents. We are still talking about Benghazi, which makes the group that instigated the attack that much more powerful and relevant. We have seen the political answer to this incident and it can shake us down to our core.
Conversesly speaking, we are now seeing White House cronies appologizing for their representation of Bergdahl, but the President refuses to appologize for the actual trade and the manner in which it was perpetrated. This shows that the political win became more important than the actual situation. We have now violated one other precept that we have stood by for over a decade: we will not negotiate with terrorists. We are seeing a dramatically different POV. A Soldier that seems to have deserted and reportedly became complicit with the enemy became more valuable than those who were serving in the Embassy in Benghazi. He became more valuable than the six Soldiers who were on the search missions for him. He became a political pawn to demonstrate a new, peaceful ideology which is being attempted after several red-line threats failed to be followed through on. Am I glad that he is back in the control of the US? Absolutely, but only if an inpartial, non-politically motivated investigation is conducted to determine his true status. If he became complicit and if the reports that he sought out the Taliban are true; then his POW status is complete BS and he is an enemy combatant. The same as John Walker Lindh.
Does the Warrior Class live by the "Leave NO Man Behind" creedo. I do. I think that 99% or more of us do. Does the rest of America. I would like to think so. Do our politicians? The results seem very inconclusive at best.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google