Or....should we be asking questions like....."Did we plan this mission properly? Did we become predictable in our Tactics and thus fall prey to the enemy adapting to our tactics? Did we have airborne surviellance assets over head scanning the LZ and surrounds for enemy activity? If we did...was there a failure in capability, command and control, and/or application of technology/assets? Were on-scene Troops properly tasked/resourced for the mission? Was there effectively coordination of all units tasked? Was Command and Control elements properly informed, knowledgeable, and in effective control of all units/assets/resources? Are we getting complacent due to the sheer number of these operations being undertaken? Are the units involved in these missions experiencing over-saturation? Are the Rules of Engagement too restrictive? Did the engaged units receive adequate and timely support from Tube Artillery, Scout and Attack helicopters, and Tactical Aircraft?"
For once I couldn't agree with you more. My question to you is this. If instead of a CH-47 it was a V-22 that this happened to would the V-22 naysayers ask these questions or would they immeadiately assume it was the fault of the aircraft and insinuate that something was being covered up when officials said otherwise?
Fact of the matter is none of us on here has enough information to say that one aircraft would have been better suited for this mission than another, so we shouldn't.