Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the meanwhile, it took a Canadian to start the process of the final result by extracting six.
That was nice and neat but not relevant. The US did the world and ourselves a terrible disservice when it failed to go after the hostages. The individual lives, of vast import of course, were irrelevant in this situation. Basically I think we were doomed by Entebbe. If Israel could pull it off so could we.
Absolutely absurd if you think about it. We go for the stealth. With perhaps twice as many or three times as many assets as we think necessary. But if it starts to break...regiments of the 101st or 82nd. You do not allow for failure. Once you commit it goes on until resolved...no backing off. And if not the Airborne...Than a few strategic nukes into the center of Tehran.
Once you commit to one of these things...which was required if the US wished to continue it role as the lead nation, you do not back off.
this stuff is terrible and awful...but it has to be. And many many died from the failure of our response. It is subtle but real. We killed our own and many innocent bystanders by allowing the thing not to be settled.
Sometimes force of arms is it. And this is one of those times. And the Persians of all people to sense weakness. God what an awful thing to do.
That was nice and neat but not relevant. The US did the world and ourselves a terrible disservice when it failed to go after the hostages. The individual lives, of vast import of course, were irrelevant in this situation. Basically I think we were doomed by Entebbe. If Israel could pull it off so could we.
Absolutely absurd if you think about it. We go for the stealth. With perhaps twice as many or three times as many assets as we think necessary. But if it starts to break...regiments of the 101st or 82nd. You do not allow for failure. Once you commit it goes on until resolved...no backing off. And if not the Airborne...Than a few strategic nukes into the center of Tehran.
Once you commit to one of these things...which was required if the US wished to continue it role as the lead nation, you do not back off.
this stuff is terrible and awful...but it has to be. And many many died from the failure of our response. It is subtle but real. We killed our own and many innocent bystanders by allowing the thing not to be settled.
Sometimes force of arms is it. And this is one of those times. And the Persians of all people to sense weakness. God what an awful thing to do.
You don't do much thinking do you? Consider all of the following:
1. Your strategy would almost certainly have gotten all the hostages killed.
2. Your strategy would have embroiled the USA in a war possibly with a nuclear armed country.
3. Its likely thousands of innocent people would have died.
4. The USA would have been seen as an international pariah by other nations who would not have understood our lack of patience where our hostages were not being harmed.
As near as I can tell, you believe this is a price that that the USA should have paid to preserve your notions of respect and to make people fear this country. You could not be more wrong. America has the de facto leader of the free world until now because of our powerful economy and our commitment to notions of human rights. We'll see if that reputation stays intact through the next three years. Our reputation is what it is because we don't operate on a fascist model of killing and maiming those in countries that are not friendly to us.
Carter got all those hostages out in 444 days without the loss of a single human life. Win, lose, or draw Carter can be proud of that even though he lost the election for his second term.
I am thankful people like Carter were in charge of our foreign policy in 1980, rather than jingoistic fools.
The mistake made by Carter was his initial indecision, which is exactly the same mistake we made during the 2012 Bengahzi Embassy attack - failure to assess the situation quickly and act firmly and decisively. Speed is of the essence. A firm response or even a threat of a firm response during the first 24 hours would prevented the hostage crises or gotten them released quickly. After that, it was too late.
The Iran seizing of the embassy was no surprise, they did it several times before and left relatively peacefully (in one case they shot and seized a marine however). But it was the lack of response from Washington that empowered Iran yet again. From all accounts, the third time would have lasted the same of the two previous times - seize the embassy, rough up a few employees, trash it, then leave. But Carter's reaction was impotent, simply pleading with them to release the hostages and offering to sing Kumbayah with the Ayotollah (who had the real power to release them), and then the economic sanctions route. The hostage rescue attempt didn't even start planning until 4 months into the crises.
This sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking but one must ask - what security preparations did we do with the embassy after the first 2 times it was seized (besides reducing embassy staff)?, should be embassy have simply been closed?, what military assets did we have in the area (i.e. gunships with fighter escort)?, why did Carter continue to rely on the powerless provisional government when everyone knew it was really the Ayotollah calling the shots? what pressure (veiled threats, etc.) was used besides asking "please" and then economic pressure, if any, to encourage The Ayotollah to release the hostages? why did we wait 4 months before rescue planning? why did this rescue attempt fail - was our military so unprepared and badly trained at that point in the early 80s? All of these lapses - Carter is responsible for.
Your strategy would have embroiled the USA in a war possibly with a nuclear armed country.
If your mean Iran, they were not a nuclear armed country and were in fact embroiled in the Iran-Iraq war at the time, using essentially WW1 trench warfare and mass attack "human-wave" tactics. Basically for them they were at 1914 technology and military leadership levels with some US cold war era tanks and jets that were falling apart due to lack of supplies.
If your mean Iran, they were not a nuclear armed country and were in fact embroiled in the Iran-Iraq war at the time, using essentially WW1 trench warfare and mass attack "human-wave" tactics. Basically for them they were at 1914 technology and military leadership levels with some US cold war era tanks and jets that were falling apart due to lack of supplies.
Iran was secretly getting weapons from the US during that time. Sadam was not aware of it during that time as the US were openly selling US arms to Iraq., Sadam did eventually discover that the US was selling weapons to Iran, and became anti American after that.
The mistake made by Carter was his initial indecision, which is exactly the same mistake we made during the 2012 Bengahzi Embassy attack - failure to assess the situation quickly and act firmly and decisively. Speed is of the essence. A firm response or even a threat of a firm response during the first 24 hours would prevented the hostage crises or gotten them released quickly. After that, it was too late.
The Iran seizing of the embassy was no surprise, they did it several times before and left relatively peacefully (in one case they shot and seized a marine however). But it was the lack of response from Washington that empowered Iran yet again. From all accounts, the third time would have lasted the same of the two previous times - seize the embassy, rough up a few employees, trash it, then leave. But Carter's reaction was impotent, simply pleading with them to release the hostages and offering to sing Kumbayah with the Ayotollah (who had the real power to release them), and then the economic sanctions route. The hostage rescue attempt didn't even start planning until 4 months into the crises.
This sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking but one must ask - what security preparations did we do with the embassy after the first 2 times it was seized (besides reducing embassy staff)?, should be embassy have simply been closed?, what military assets did we have in the area (i.e. gunships with fighter escort)?, why did Carter continue to rely on the powerless provisional government when everyone knew it was really the Ayotollah calling the shots? what pressure (veiled threats, etc.) was used besides asking "please" and then economic pressure, if any, to encourage The Ayotollah to release the hostages? why did we wait 4 months before rescue planning? why did this rescue attempt fail - was our military so unprepared and badly trained at that point in the early 80s? All of these lapses - Carter is responsible for.
This is exactly correct. I'm not a hawk, but I've never understood the Carter apologists. He basically created a situation where the Iranian leadership could humiliate the United States and then played right into their hands.
Second, the United States didn't supply arms to Iran until the Reagan era. The American hostages in Iran were released the day that President Reagan was sworn into office.
Third, for those who believe that it would have been simple to use military force to retrieve the hostages (after all, Israeli forces rescued their hostages) - consider that Iran isn't Uganda...and that the Entebbe raid happened in 1976. Getting it done once when it had never had happened before involved luck and the element of surprise. Getting it done a second time within a larger nation with an operating air force would have been (IMO) immeasurably more difficult.
Fourth, for those who contend that the Iranian military forces were of a 1914 caliber, I would point you to the Mogadishu raid of 1993, when modern, trained, and recently successful U.S. military forces were chased out of the city by an angry populace utilizing AK-47s and RPGs.
Fifth, for those who believed that we should have gone total war against Iran, I point to the second Iraq war, the difference being that Iran is 50% larger in land area and has double the population of Iraq.
The mistake made by Carter was his initial indecision, which is exactly the same mistake we made during the 2012 Bengahzi Embassy attack - failure to assess the situation quickly and act firmly and decisively. Speed is of the essence. A firm response or even a threat of a firm response during the first 24 hours would prevented the hostage crises or gotten them released quickly. After that, it was too late.
The Iran seizing of the embassy was no surprise, they did it several times before and left relatively peacefully (in one case they shot and seized a marine however). But it was the lack of response from Washington that empowered Iran yet again. From all accounts, the third time would have lasted the same of the two previous times - seize the embassy, rough up a few employees, trash it, then leave. But Carter's reaction was impotent, simply pleading with them to release the hostages and offering to sing Kumbayah with the Ayotollah (who had the real power to release them), and then the economic sanctions route. The hostage rescue attempt didn't even start planning until 4 months into the crises.
This sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking but one must ask - what security preparations did we do with the embassy after the first 2 times it was seized (besides reducing embassy staff)?, should be embassy have simply been closed?, what military assets did we have in the area (i.e. gunships with fighter escort)?, why did Carter continue to rely on the powerless provisional government when everyone knew it was really the Ayotollah calling the shots? what pressure (veiled threats, etc.) was used besides asking "please" and then economic pressure, if any, to encourage The Ayotollah to release the hostages? why did we wait 4 months before rescue planning? why did this rescue attempt fail - was our military so unprepared and badly trained at that point in the early 80s? All of these lapses - Carter is responsible for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
First, Iran didn't have a nuclear option in 1980.
Second, the United States didn't supply arms to Iran until the Reagan era. The American hostages in Iran were released the day that President Reagan was sworn into office.
Third, for those who believe that it would have been simple to use military force to retrieve the hostages (after all, Israeli forces rescued their hostages) - consider that Iran isn't Uganda...and that the Entebbe raid happened in 1976. Getting it done once when it had never had happened before involved luck and the element of surprise. Getting it done a second time within a larger nation with an operating air force would have been (IMO) immeasurably more difficult.
Fourth, for those who contend that the Iranian military forces were of a 1914 caliber, I would point you to the Mogadishu raid of 1993, when modern, trained, and recently successful U.S. military forces were chased out of the city by an angry populace utilizing AK-47s and RPGs.
Fifth, for those who believed that we should have gone total war against Iran, I point to the second Iraq war, the difference being that Iran is 50% larger in land area and has double the population of Iraq.
You both have misunderstood my point about possibly going to war with a nuclear armed country over this.
Had the USA sent troops to Iran or engaged in the equivalent of a real war, we could have easily ended up in a struggle with the USSR. Iran borders the USSR. It is sort of like "What would the American response have been if the USSR attacked Mexico?" I will give everyone exactly one guess what the response would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
