To rescue or cut losses?

[Shpaget]

The hypothetical situation is that a member of your military unit has been captured by the enemy. Relatively reliable intel says he is still alive and there is a decent probability of rescue, but it is likely that doing so will endanger more of your allies. It is your decision to either send the rescue party that will likely suffer some loss of life and certainly cause death on the enemy side, or you could cut losses and leave your captured ally to his fate - questioning, torture and death.

What do you do? Why?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Shpaget

[Just Jim]

Going by your scenario, I would absolutely attempt a rescue.  Because there are likely to be casualties on our side, I would ask for volunteers and not order someone to go.  I have three reasons for attempting it. 

First, it's the right thing to do... although morality can sometimes get you killed in combat.  I was in the Army and the bonds you forge with your buddies is very strong.  You just don't leave someone behind.

Second, if the captured ally is to be interrogated and/or tortured, then he most likely has information that must not get to the enemy, and needs to be rescued before he breaks.

Third, you state we would cause death to the enemy.  So if the rescue is successful, and we do some serious damage to the enemy, then it could deal a psychological blow to the enemy, and make him think twice about taking captives.

[Elthy]

Also you have to consider the morale of the remaining troops. They will likely be more confident and courageos if they know everything is done to ensure their return home.

[Shpaget]

What of risk of more allies being captured?

[Bill Phil]

Depends. I'm not a strategist and I'm also extremely unlucky, so I have become quite cautious. I would rely on someone who's better at weighing odds.

[Randazzo]

In that exact situation I would attempt a rescue. The situation is rarely that cut and dry though.

Depending on who the "enemy" is, negotiation could even be possible.

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

What of risk of more allies being captured?

This is why I would make the rescue mission a voluntary one.  Because there is always that risk as well. 

The biggest issue would be finding just the right people for the job.  There are some in the military that are trained in just this type of mission, and finding the best of these would be vital! 

There are also a couple things I would do first, and these come from Sun-Tsu. First, and most important, it is critical we have eyes in the enemy camp, if possible. Intelligence is everything, and any spies we have should try to find what they can about the captive, where he is being held, how many troops, etc... The better the intel, the greater chance of success.

Also, if possible, we should set up some form of feint, or diversion, right before the rescue attempt.  An attack on a nearby target would be ideal, especially if it can draw enemy forces from where the captive is being held.  Something that will make a lot of noise, but still be relatively safe for our side.

Lastly, if at all possible, during the diversion try and get in and back out without being seen.  A small elite task force would be best for this.  The reason being again psychological.  Leaving a lot of carnage may make the enemy think twice... but getting in and out without a trace will definitely scare them more!

Edited December 2, 2015 by Just Jim
spelling... again... lol

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

What of risk of more allies being captured?

To be very cynical, you can take a statistical approach. You're weighing the risks of, say, a dozen lives for the rescue operation, against the effectiveness of the entire army (say, a 100,000). Because once word goes out that you're left out to dry, the willingness to go out will decrease significantly.

[cantab]

2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I was in the Army and the bonds you forge with your buddies is very strong.  You just don't leave someone behind.

This is the attitude I think most non-conscription armies, and even some that use conscripts, today would take.

Indeed, this scenario is pretty much exactly what Russia did after their pilots were shot down by Turkey. Russia sent out search-and-rescue helicopters, and one of those came under fire causing a further Russian death.

[Shpaget]

Yeah, the Russia / Turkey / Syria incident was partly what motivated me to start this topic. In this particular case, the Russians rescued one of the downed pilots, however, one of the rescue helicopters was shot at, at which point one of its crew was killed and the helicopter itself disabled. It had to land and now the rest of the helicopter crew was stranded requiring rescue. So, Russian losses went from one dead, one stranded and one jet destroyed to two dead, two stranded (surviving helicopter crew, jet pilot was rescued by another helicopter), one jet and one helicopter destroyed.

[RainDreamer]

Impossible to give a simple answer. This is the kind of situation that requires a whole panel of military, political, and communication experts trying to figure out what can be considered "acceptable loss" before making decisions, and any new element introduced to the situation can change the decisions wildly. 

[GoSlash27]

I suspect everyone who is or has been in the military will answer the same way with no hesitation: Rescue.

Soldiers don't fight for a cause, a flag, or orders. They fight for each other. They trust their team to keep them alive and understand that their team is relying on them.

 JustJim has it pegged; people in military units have a very tight bond. Their mutual protectiveness is on the level of a mama bear's protectiveness of her cubs. Not attempting a rescue is pretty much out of the question.

 If they are not offered the chance to rescue their comrade, they may well attempt a rescue on their own, even against orders. 

Best,

-Slashy

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Shpaget]

6 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Soldiers don't fight for a cause, a flag, or orders. They fight for each other.

If that were truly the case there would be no fighting at all.

[Rath]

They still follow orders.  

[WinkAllKerb'']

yeah that probably why they refused me euthanasia the 30 time or so i asked them, they follow order without understanding them xDr (am i jokin' , who know xdr) 

last few weeks (more or less) crappy none-KAï naruto kinda revolve around that subject also ... to nakama or to not nakama ... is this even a question ?

Edited December 4, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''