Originally Posted by
tdracer
The Iranian treatment of the US hostages 46 years ago was not exactly a model of compassion and kindness - and they were civilians.
Getting their military bombed out of existence on a daily basis is not exactly conducive to good treatment of captured enemy.
TD, you are absolutely correct, however, the political situation today is not that of 1979. The overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a revolution, arising for better or worse following the overthrow in 1953 of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, in operation Ajax, which was a response by Churchill against the announced nationalisation of the Anglo-Persian oil company, which was not received well back in #10. The U.S. joined in with support by the CIA, which didn't make many friends. The Shah's history didn't make for friendly relationships in 1979. Further back, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi took the hot seat in 1941 following the overthrow of his father, Reza Shah, by a joint action of the British and Soviets. Given the love that SAVAK meted out with the support of the West under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, it is not surprising that the hostage crisis followed. That event was beneficial to the revolutionary cause, but had some likelihood of being unscripted, and a reaction by the populace to the change in their situation. The Shah wasn't that much different to other governments that have existed in the region, and that is the problem that the region has; enormous wealth and opulence is on display in an area that has rather strong views on their religions. Makes for an interesting combination.
The current circus act is in an environment that is far removed from 1979, although capping the leaders does add to chaotic response. In the case of the F-15E crew, the government asked the populace to apprehend, alive the crew, which is rather different to ISIS's mode of operation. All that may change with further escalation from those that are in charge of tweeting national policy at 2:00 AM, and certainly the language in todays missive from the fount of knowledge on all things, was rather impolite. It is a change to have a head of state that requires a bleep to his commentary.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
I think the more relevant question might be: What is the benefit to the moral of the troops to know the extent that the higher ups would go to implementing the rescue of a downed airman.
I think the more relevant question might be:
What is the benefit to the morale of the troops to know the extent that the higher ups would go to implementing the rescue of a downed airman.
"Morals" is the other thing, observable in absence in some tweets of recent times.