|
[QUOTE=sduarfts]I've read Beckwith's book and also "The Guts To Try" and John Carney's book "No Room For Error" on the subject. I believe that enough questions were raised during the planning/rehersal phase that JSOC or something similiar would have been formed regardless of the missions outcome on a slower time line of course. However, it would have still lead to SOCOM.
As for the world view of the US, I want to say that terrorism against us would have been reduced for at least awhile, but I have trouble backing my idea.
I'm obviously no expert. I carry the standard background of a 1 enlistment Ranger and am left concluding the world could potentially be a very different place had the mission been acomplished. For now the only answers I come up with are questions.
Solid you give proof that there is credence to destroying your enemy. Also, armies by their sheer size are forced into bureacratic boxes. There must be elements that remain outside of the said box to be prepared for as many scenarios as possible. These brave men working outside the box by the experience they gain allow the bureacracy to grow by proving what is feasible and what is not.
Just my.02... I doubt terrorism against us would have reduced if that mission had been successful. In this case the hostages were all held in the embassy and this was known. If the mission was a success. terrorists would have just smacked thier forhead and gone DUH? No more keeping them in one known place all together. If any of them had a large group of hostages now or in the past years, think they would have them all in one known location? They merely adapt, not stop. Not even for awhile. Any lag or absence of terrorist activity is only due to thier patience and planning. Much like they did ultimately with passengers from TWA 847 in 1985. They removed the passengers at times and ferreted them all around Beirut in small groups, over a hundred. Think the pukes that did this may have learned something 5 years prior during Eagle Claw?
|