The Iranian Tragedy of 1980

[Gregory Pratt]

http://iran.theatlantic.com/interactive_article_page_1.html

 

A history of the "Desert One" rescue mission.

[samclemens]

http://iran.theatlantic.com/interactive_article_page_1.html

 

A history of the "Desert One" rescue mission.

 

man, dont get me started on that pussy. what a debacle. i dont want to turn this into a "worst prez in recent/contemporary US history" thread, but i will just say that I will always prefer a prez who (arguably, and i stress the word arguably) does too much than a uterus that does too little.

[BigSqwert]

I will always prefer a prez who (arguably, and i stress the word arguably) does too much than a uterus that does too little.

I concur. Clinton did a great thing by sending troops into Bosnia. I like to see a president try to do something that isn't oil-related.

[Balta1701]

I concur.  Clinton did a great thing by sending troops into Bosnia.  I like to see a president try to do something that isn't oil-related.

So wait a second, Bosnia has oil supplies?

[mr_genius]

So wait a second, Bosnia has oil supplies?

 

 

we don't need it, the oil in Iraq will fix/pay for everything.

[Texsox]

I know I sleep better knowing Grenada can't invade us. And I think Ford and his Whip Inflation Now; WIN! Campaign was genious

 

As some people know, unlike third world dictatorships, the US President doesn't fire the military and replace them with all new people. Carter did not plan that strategic rescue mission, the military did, the same ones that were there when Ford was President and when Reagan was President. I believe the Commander in Chief gets far too much credit for operational planning. The military had a plan that they thought would have the best chance of freeing the hostages. Carter gave the military the green light. Should he have been on the mission? Should he personally have done the planning?

[kapkomet]

As some people know, unlike third world dictatorships, the US President doesn't fire the military and replace them with all new people. Carter did not plan that strategic rescue mission, the military did, the same ones that were there when Ford was President and when Reagan was President. I believe the Commander in Chief gets far too much credit for operational planning. The military had a plan that they thought would have the best chance of freeing the hostages. Carter gave the military the green light. Should he have been on the mission? Should he personally have done the planning?

You've got to be kidding.

[Texsox]

You've got to be kidding.

What are you blaming Carter for?

 

A bad military plan?

Maintenance on the choppers?

Weather?

Soldiers failing to execute the plan?

A helicopter clipping a C-130?

 

The second guessing could be, was this the best approach? A miitary or diplomatic solution. Adding additional, and greater, violence into the equation should be weighed carefully and I believe it was. After holding off on a military strike, the decision was made to go ahead. I think that was a good decision at the time.

 

After the mission was aborted, due to a sudden sandstorm, a helicopter clipped a C-130 taking off, resulting in the deaths of eight servicemen. I find it hard to blame the President for that.

 

I believe we had out best possible people involved, the Air Force and Marines and am saddened for the eight servicemen who died in the mission. I don't think the Presidents decides who participates, plus it was a volunteer mission.

 

In the end, the Algiers Accords resulted in the release of the hostages, alive. I think it is unfair to say unharmed, because anyone held hostage for 444 days, will be harmed.

 

Sadly, we are better prepared today for this type of event. We have worked more missions and battles in the desert, have better technology, better resources in Arab countries, better understanding of the terrorist mind. Yet, hostages are killed regularly in that corner of the world. Perhaps, in hindsight, we did a much better job in 1979 than we thought.

[Balta1701]

I think if anything, Carter does deserve some blame for going forwards with a very risky, highly complex, and poorly planned mission which had a very high probability of failure without making sure he was adequately informed on the mission and its probabilities of failure. He also deserves blame for letting impatience get the best of him, since they rightfully rejected that plan before, but then went ahead with it anyway after their patience wore thin.

[Texsox]

I think if anything, Carter does deserve some blame for going forwards with a very risky, highly complex, and poorly planned mission which had a very high probability of failure without making sure he was adequately informed on the mission and its probabilities of failure.  He also deserves blame for letting impatience get the best of him, since they rightfully rejected that plan before, but then went ahead with it anyway after their patience wore thin.

 

Risky? Any mission was going to be highly risky. No way around it.

 

Complex? Again, operating half way around the world, I don't think there would be a simple solution. If there was, somewhere in the halls of the Pentagon and CIA, it would have been thought of.

 

Poorly planned? I'm not certain what you are basing that on. IIRC, this plan had been worked out and practiced in a secret location. I think our military, operating on the knowledge of the day, had the best plan possible. But we really will never know. We never got that far. A sandstorm caused the mission to be aborted.

 

High probability of failure? Possibly, but it was decided by the Pentagon and everyone else, it was the best of the group. I believe any plan had a high probability of failure, which is why one wasn't tried until diplomatic avenues were running out. In the immediate aftermath, I never heard a better plan proposed.

 

I don't think it was patience, but I've read some compelling stuff that politics and getting re-elected factored into the timing. I've also read Pentagon sources that claim other wise, it was procedural and training issues that delayed along with moon phase and the captors patterns.

 

I wonder how it would have played out today? No negotiations. More violent terorrists. I am pessimistic that it would have turned out as well. I see a lot more body bags, and isn't that the bottom line?

[Gregory Pratt]

No matter how anyone tries to spin it, I will always be appalled by the fact that the President of the United States authorized the stealthy invasion of a country as large as Iran with a handful of helicopters and thought that this was the best course of action he could possibly take.

[samclemens]

tex. you are saying that carter shouldnt get all the blame for that screwup because they planned it. i havent seen you extend our current president the same courtesy, why is that?

 

how you can honestly defend carter is beyond me...he was the worst modern prez in our country's history, and his iran decision has adversely and directly affected our current situation with iran. to me that is indisputable.

[Balta1701]

tex. you are saying that carter shouldnt get all the blame for that screwup because they planned it. i havent seen you extend our current president the same courtesy, why is that?

 

how you can honestly defend carter is beyond me...he was the worst modern prez in our country's history, and his iran decision has adversely and directly affected our current situation with iran. to me that is indisputable.

So...if you're asking Tex why he's unwilling to extend blame to Carter...are you willing to extend similar blame for our current debacle to the big chair?

[samclemens]

So...if you're asking Tex why he's unwilling to extend blame to Carter...are you willing to extend similar blame for our current debacle to the big chair? 

 

this has nothing to do with my views on the war. im asking him to use the same standard for carter and bush. with that reasoning, the iraq war isnt so much bush's fault because he didnt militarily plan it.

 

certainly a debacle then....not necessarily right now, not yet at least. since you asked, thats my opinion.

[Texsox]

tex. you are saying that carter shouldnt get all the blame for that screwup because they planned it. i havent seen you extend our current president the same courtesy, why is that?

 

how you can honestly defend carter is beyond me...he was the worst modern prez in our country's history, and his iran decision has adversely and directly affected our current situation with iran. to me that is indisputable.

Show me where I blamed Bush for any of the hostages that have been killed? I have extended that same courtesy to Bush as I would any President.

[Cknolls]

What are you blaming Carter for?

 

A bad military plan?

Maintenance on the choppers?

Weather?

Soldiers failing to execute the plan?

A helicopter clipping a C-130?

 

The second guessing could be, was this the best approach? A miitary or diplomatic solution. Adding additional, and greater, violence into the equation should be weighed carefully and I believe it was. After holding off on a military strike, the decision was made to go ahead. I think that was a good decision at the time.

 

After the mission was aborted, due to a sudden sandstorm, a helicopter clipped a C-130 taking off, resulting in the deaths of eight servicemen. I find it hard to blame the President for that.

 

I believe we had out best possible people involved, the Air Force and Marines and am saddened for the eight servicemen who died in the mission. I don't think the Presidents decides who participates, plus it was a volunteer mission.

 

In the end, the Algiers Accords resulted in the release of the hostages, alive. I think it is unfair to say unharmed, because anyone held hostage for 444 days, will be harmed.

 

Sadly, we are better prepared today for this type of event. We have worked more missions and battles in the desert, have better technology, better resources in Arab countries, better understanding of the terrorist mind. Yet, hostages are killed regularly in that corner of the world. Perhaps, in hindsight, we did a much better job in 1979 than we thought.

 

Ask the CIA how good their resources are in the Arab countries.

[Texsox]

I've been thinking about what would have happened if this unfolded today. There would likely been no negoatiations, no Algiers Accord, maybe a better plan for a military rescue. I don't believe we have advanced much in our dealings with terrorists in the past 20-25 years.

[kapkomet]

I've been thinking about what would have happened if this unfolded today. There would likely been no negoatiations, no Algiers Accord, maybe a better plan for a military rescue. I don't believe we have advanced much in our dealings with terrorists in the past 20-25 years.

They need a foot upside their ass and kicked out of this life. That's how you deal with them.

[Texsox]

They need a foot upside their ass and kicked out of this life.  That's how you deal with them.

 

who? the terrorists?

[kapkomet]

who? the terrorists?

No, our presidents.

 

Yep, the terrorists.

[Texsox]

No, our presidents. 

 

Yep, the terrorists.

 

why not both?