PTT – I cannot help but feel that you are being overly simplistic. What about the bad guys that you have
not seen, carefully drawing a bead on you from 7 o'clock while you are self-righteously ‘keeping the injured guy in the sights’. I wouldn’t want you as my wingman. And I am afraid that putting up the Geneva Convention link is, to my interpretation, intimating judgement but shying from actually saying so…interesting given the topic title! No offence intended by the way – best debate in here for ages.
Beagle – I have seen some worryingly cavalier approaches too but also some incredible discipline too. Witness Triple Nickel aborting a drop on DMPI 10 of 10 after no impact seen on target 9 – raising the possibility of a collateral incident. Post flight it could be seen that the GBU was DH but UXB on DMPI 9 – it could be seen in a nice dark debriefing room but in a noisy, vibrating, sweaty cockpit with the sun reflecting off of the screen the pilot had not seen it (rather reinforces my, and your, point about the difference between being there at the time and making clinical judgements afterwards). To decommit the drop with milli-seconds to go was nothing short of meticulously professional. Not excusing the cowboys, but an important counterpoint.
CB – spot on in my book.
Yeller – actually, I think that you do have a point. Interestingly, the article does not put the quote into context. In a public forum the General would, at the least, be lacking judgement but to a military audience, under Chatham House rules…?
Given backpocket’s endorsement, I am inclined to suspect that his remarks have been taken wildly out of context.