# "Jungle lanes" what would you do?



## Jarnhamar (3 Sep 2012)

I posed this question to troops who were doing pairs jungle lanes a while ago. I'm big on treating stuff like this as if it were real and posing ethical questions to the soldiers involved- relative to what might happen 'real world'.

*The range;*
You and a fire team partner advance up 300 meters of jungle lanes engaging 7 banks of figure 11 targets on the lockheed martin popup machines, armed with a C7, 5 mags and a bayonet.

*The scenario;*

You and your fire team partner are at an OP when you are ordered to collapse the Op and make your back to the FOB located a few hundred meters away through the jungle.  A number of enemy soldiers have infiltrated the jungle between you and your FOB and are engaging you with small arms as you try and pass

*The question I posed.*
Once you engage a position and do a check of the enemy on your way past you notice he's still alive, what do you do?

-Shoot/grenade the position to make sure the enemy is dead and you're not leaving a threat at your back.
-Leave him wounded man and continue to the safety of your position.
-Stop and provide medical aid 
-Something else?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2012)

Leave the wounded. Tactical situation does not allow the treatment of the enemy casualty.

There's no dilemma here. Wounding the enemy does not automatically create an obligation to treat him.


----------



## MikeL (3 Sep 2012)

You didn't mention if he was still a threat or not.  Distance between yourself and the enemy combatant?

Also,   is there other enemy in the area - known or unknown/possible?  Any timings to meet?  Radio?



From what I've read and assumed,  I would make sure he is not a threat before carrying on to the FOB.  2 guys on their own in bad guy land,  not going to want to stick around as more bad guys may be coming.  Make note of location(mark grid if you have GPS) and report it as well as everything else at the Coy CP back in the FOB.


If the enemy has a weapon on him and is still moving I would shoot as I would believe the enemy to be a threat still.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2012)

I'd leave him.  But I'd assertain if he was a threat before carrying on.


----------



## Armymedic (3 Sep 2012)

One round, aimed shot, bad dude check if tactically feasible, otherwise leave them. Anyone left alive behind you who knows your team's strength and track is a liability.

And hope like hell you make it back alive to face the court martial.


----------



## chrisf (3 Sep 2012)

I'm not an expert in the Geneva convention by any means... but court martial for what? 

Has the enemy combatant surrendered? If not, still a lawful target isn't he?


----------



## brihard (3 Sep 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm not an expert in the Geneva convention by any means... but court martial for what?
> 
> Has the enemy combatant surrendered? If not, still a lawful target isn't he?



An enemy who is manifestly _hors de combat_ by virtue of wounds is protected by international law as well. They need not have actively surrendered if it should be apparent to a reasonable person, taking circumstances into account, that they are incapable of fighting.


----------



## MeatheadMick (3 Sep 2012)

Get the MP on your team to take him as a detainee? lol

In all honestly though, you gotta figure you're within 300m to the FOB. Win the fire-fight, disarm threat and carry on to FOB where you can better tactically assess your situation. As was said previously, the situation doesn't allow for immediate first aid when you're still in danger.

First aid could be done as part of the Battle Damage Assessment... some may say that will take too long and the enemy will die... I say, then they shouldn't have been shooting at me.


----------



## chrisf (3 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> An enemy who is manifestly _hors de combat_ by virtue of wounds is protected by international law as well. They need not have actively surrendered if it should be apparent to a reasonable person, taking circumstances into account, that they are incapable of fighting.



I guess "wounded" is far to vague of a scenario, and the old adage "situation dictates" applies.

"I know first aid, can I help?" is probably not your best approach if there's any threat.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Sep 2012)

Does the moral and ethical calculus change if the FOB is in fact a defensive position, and you are collapsing the OP because the main body of the enemy is about to hit your position?


----------



## brihard (4 Sep 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Does the moral and ethical calculus change if the FOB is in fact a defensive position, and you are collapsing the OP because the main body of the enemy is about to hit your position?



I don't think threat / not a threat in the case of a wounded enemy is likely to change based on the nature of the FOB...

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we could 'what if' this to get almost any conceivable result with particular enough circumstances, but that's probably a tad outside the scope of what he's doing with his troops...


----------



## Maxadia (4 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> An enemy who is manifestly _hors de combat_ by virtue of wounds is protected by international law as well. They need not have actively surrendered if it should be apparent to a reasonable person, taking circumstances into account, that they are incapable of fighting.



If they are incapable of fighting, then leave them.


----------



## medicineman (4 Sep 2012)

I think these are the operative words - there are only 2 of you, you're known to be outnumbered, maybe even surrounded and have 300m of "jungle" to get through.  If the shot dude is in your direct avenue of advance, check him and disarm him (maybe), but I wouldn't linger at all, especially if they're capable of talking.  If he makes like he's still in the fight, finish him off and carry on.  There are more baddies out there than there are you to worry about.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2012)

If you kill them all now, you won't have to try rekill them later. 

You're withdrawing to a defensive position in contact. Second guessing ethics in this scenario will get you and your fireteam partner killed. You're under no obligation to treat them and they remain a threat if left alive.

 :2c:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I don't think threat / not a threat in the case of a wounded enemy is likely to change based on the *nature of the FOB*...



Not so much the nature of the FOB as the nature of the conflict.  I have been pondering the impact of fighting a near peer (or at very least non third-rate non-COIN) type of battle in the next go around.  How much of our ROE / innate understanding of the laws of armed conflict have been tainted by a long operation where the people were the center of gravity vice, say, the enemy's cohesion, or freedom of movement, or at the tactical level, armoured capability or "Presidential Guard".  How much have our IA drills on contact / casualty have been shaped by the AStan war?  If I were a commander, would I truly be willing to press the attack to secure objective GUMBY once we have taken 4 KIA and 11 WIA?  Are the troops ready to go through well-rehearsed regrouping drills in order to press the attack?

Perhaps a topic for a different thread....


----------



## JorgSlice (4 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you kill them all now, you won't have to try rekill them later.
> 
> You're withdrawing to a defensive position in contact. Second guessing ethics in this scenario will get you and your fireteam partner killed. You're under no obligation to treat them and they remain a threat if left alive.
> 
> :2c:



...and then you have the Capt. Semrau situation happen again. Good men doing good things to save lives end up under the knife.

Second guessing ethics may get someone killed, but what would you rather happen? Leave them alive, they pose a threat, maybe someone gets killed (or multiple); but get to keep your job? Or, you neutralize the threat, maybe saving a life (or multiple), and end up losing your career and forever labelled as "That Guy" in the public world?

Sorry, I'm out of my lane on this one but... It is something I may have to consider in an operational situation. Eventually.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2012)

Why did you only wound him first time around, you wanker?

A quick bayonet to the throat to save ammo and avoid drawing attention to yourself and your bad shooting, then slink back with your tail between your legs and report to the CSM for more range work, you idle little man.  ;D


----------



## TN2IC (4 Sep 2012)

When is doubt, call in FASTAIR.   >

That was my answer to every ROE question I was asked.

Regards,
Macey.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2012)

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> ...and then you have the Capt. Semrau situation happen again. Good men doing good things to save lives end up under the knife.
> 
> Second guessing ethics may get someone killed, but what would you rather happen? Leave them alive, they pose a threat, maybe someone gets killed (or multiple); but get to keep your job? Or, you neutralize the threat, maybe saving a life (or multiple), and end up losing your career and forever labelled as "That Guy" in the public world?
> 
> Sorry, I'm out of my lane on this one but... It is something I may have to consider in an operational situation. Eventually.



The tactical situation is not the same.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Sep 2012)

Do you have a radio, is there a QRF that can b e tasked to support your team? I would radio the FOB with a quick Sit Rep, the OIC may want the prisoner. You may be ordered to take a defensive position to overwatch the wounded while the QRF is outbound. If no radio, 2 of you are not going to be able to move him or secure the scene and treat him. Note the location, if you are right there, grab his weapon and anything of mil Intel interest and get back to the FOB, where the OIC may decide to send out the QRF or a patrol.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (4 Sep 2012)

Once I've confirmed they are no longer engaging, go over, remove weapon(s) and keep on truckin.  If said individual attempts to get up and alert others to my presence they are once again a threat and will be dealt with.

This is very easy to say and pick apart sitting in my office chair, however my actions on the ground may be very different due to the very near threat of my life being extinguished.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2012)

The scenario has you collapsing your OP and, you and your partner, trying to get back 300 meters to your defensive position.

That is your mission, collapse the OP and get your ass back as quickly as possible. Preferably in one piece.

You are constantly being engaged, as you fight your way back, by infiltrators of unknown numbers or direction of threat.

There is no QRF mentioned. If the boss wants info, he can send out a fighting patrol when you return.

I don't know about the rest, but I wouldn't be wasting time, going off the path, checking on the ones I've shot, removing weapons, looking through pockets, marking grids, offering first aid or sitting around jabbering on the radio. The longer you spend dicking around with the enemy, in Indian territory, the less your chances are of making it back.

Being actively engaged while pursuing my mission, I'd be shooting and scooting till I was back behind my wall.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *I don't know about the rest, but I wouldn't be wasting time, going off the path, checking on the ones I've shot, removing weapons*, looking through pockets, marking grids, offering first aid or sitting around jabbering on the radio. The longer you spend dicking around with the enemy, in Indian territory, the less your chances are of making it back.



This was one of the main points I would mention to the guys.

I didn't go into too much detail about QRF, radios etc.. I wanted to keep it as simple as possibly yet post a logic question to them.

Once I posed the question "you would shoot and kill a wounded enemy soldier" I could see the lights go on in their heads and they would start thinking about real life instead of jungle lanes #1.

If someone wanted to stop and search the positions for weapons or intel I would remind them that an unknown number of enemy are in the area and could be closing in on them, every second counts.
If they wanted to perform first aid or take the wounded with them that would slow them, down and put them in danger.
Leaving the wounded soldier and getting the hell out of the jungle (my personal choice) means they get back to their lines faster but what sort of legal ramifications "could" they face if they left wounded soldiers to die. While the military community understands the necessity of it the public may very well see it differently.

I wasn't looking for the right answer from the troops as much as making them ask questions and think- it seemed to work they got into a decent debate over it afterwards.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2012)

From the idle observer's point of view:

IIRC I recall reading/hearing that the Falkland's solution as applied by the Paras and Marines was a double-tap into everybody that didn't have their hands up, as the trenches were overrun, followed by a WP into the trench.  Forward movement continued uninterrupted.

Has the world changed since 1982?


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From the idle observer's point of view:
> 
> IIRC I recall reading/hearing that the Falkland's solution as applied by the Paras and Marines was a double-tap into everybody that didn't have their hands up, as the trenches were overrun, followed by a WP into the trench.  Forward movement continued uninterrupted.
> 
> Has the world changed since 1982?



Yeah, they had a few issues with that after they got home:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2012)

D&B

I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".

The value of the WP was its persistence, discouraging re-occupation of the trench after it had been cleared.

I was not proposing atrocities.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> D&B
> 
> I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".
> 
> ...



Seen. And yes, that was a drill we used to teach. Some of the chaps DO tend to get carried away though!


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> D&B
> 
> I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".
> 
> ...



I think with social media like facebook twitter and youtube it brings a whole new dimention to something as "simple" as a two way jungle lane.

The public absolutely loves hearing about war stories and critiquing them.  
Were this scenario to happen and soldiers left wounded enemy to die I think the media would have a field day with it.  The various political parties in our government alone would use it to further their political agenda (What ARE we teaching our soldiers! We're peacekeepers not assassins!)

Military necessity of "getting back to base asap"  aside can you imagine what would happen if something like that was captured on a drone's camera? Or worse yet, a soldier decides to take the whole video of it captured on his gopro helmet cam and upload it to youtube?

Using WP to try and clear brush in Afghanistan was taken and tried to be made into a warcrime, I would not want to imagine dropping a WP grenade into an occupied trench.


----------



## Maxadia (4 Sep 2012)

> Were this scenario to happen and soldiers left wounded enemy to die I think the media would have a field day with it.



Sorry, but what?

What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds? 

Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.


----------



## MeatheadMick (5 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Sorry, but what?
> 
> What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?
> 
> Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.



Excellent point! I think what ObedientiaZelum is trying to get across though seems to be the left-wing tendency of some of today's media to portray soldiers in a negative image. Support the Troops morale stories are all fine and dandy, but the public seems to eat up the controversial stories like Semrau, Americans urinating on dead enemies, or puppies getting thrown off cliffs.

Obviously the scenario is not to the same standard as the above events, but I can see where both of you guys are coming from. I guess it all matters in the end if you'd rather be tried by 12 or carried by 6.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (5 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Sorry, but what?
> 
> What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?
> 
> Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.



Precisely what I was thinking. Engage targets as they appear until they stop appearing/shooting at you, keep moving. There's only 2 of you. Should you come across a wounded one, in your path back to the FOB, if he does not have a weapon in his hands then leave him. Nobody made him shoot at you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Sorry, but what?
> 
> What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?
> 
> Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.



Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.

Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.

In 1982 there wasn't a chance of the media going on a soldiers open source Facebook page and reading a status update made in jest about taking no prisoners and using it out of context.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.



Probably not, but at least you'll be alive to explain your actions.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.



That's a failure of leadership, not the soldier. Soldiers shouldn't be discussing it in the moment, they should be taught how to react instantaneously and carry on.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> In 1982 there wasn't a chance of the media going on a soldiers open source Facebook page and reading a status update made in jest about taking no prisoners and using it out of context.



There's the problem. Trying to get little Johnny from posting stupid shit on social media from a camera he has, in my mind, no business having out in certain situations.

More bad press and stupid shit, in the last few years, can be attributed to idiots that should know that nothing posted to the internet is private, but don't. Every electronic recording device should be turned in at endEx, patrol, whatever and vetted by the int guys, or someone higher for faux pas (is there a plural for this), before being returned to the owner.


----------



## Remius (5 Sep 2012)

Frankly, media awarness training and ethics training belongs where it belongs.  If I'm teaching section attacks, trench clearing or whatever, I want them to focus on doing their job and doing it right.  If they do it right, they don't have to worry about the media or what some blogger writes about when those people don't have a clue.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (6 Sep 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yeah, they had a few issues with that after they got home:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html


I read that entire article.  Wow, lot of interesting info in there.

Not to siderail things too much but since Capt Semrau's name was mentioned a little UFI for anyone that cares is that Rob in the Para's for 3 years before joining the CF.  He told me a couple of stories once.

Story #1- His first night in the Para's he was walking down the hallway to do his ablutions and a big burly son of a gun was walking towards him.  Just as the guy was passing by Rob, Rob noticed movement out of the corner of his eye.  He reacted instantly and stopped a fist that was coming for the side of his head.  He dropped in the guy instantly, picked up his shaving kit and kept on walking to the bathroom.  I guess this was part of the initiation into the Para's to see if you could handle an @ss whoopin.

Story #2- Well not so much as a story as just interesting to note.  Every since the "Black Friday" incident with the Para's in Northern Ireland Rob told me that the Para's were basically used a threat to quiet people down.  It wouldn't always work but if the Irish were starting to mix things up, the local garrison troops/police would tell the locals "you better calm down or the Para's are coming."  Sometimes the threat was enough.
[/UFI]

Like I said before, it's always easy to sit in a chair and pick things apart when you have time to do so without any real threat around you.  However, it's true if you have 300m to go and there are a lot of enemy soldiers between you and your objective of getting back alive, you're going to move as fast as possible and keep on shooting until you're clear.  As it should be really.


----------



## Maxadia (6 Sep 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.
> 
> Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.



You're the one being silly.  When you are teaching section attacks, teach section attacks.  You want to teach philosophy?  Fine, do it over a beer at the mess later on. Crantor is right - the troops need to focus on reacting correctly, not being a "field tactics philosopher" whose actions are dependent on what they believe the media might think of their actions.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> More bad press and stupid crap, in the last few years, can be attributed to idiots that should know that nothing posted to the internet is private, but don't care at the time and do it anyway.



Fixed that for you.  


As for plural, I believe it is the same except for this addition inserted in front: "les faux pas"


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Sep 2012)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I read that entire article.  Wow, lot of interesting info in there.
> 
> Not to siderail things too much but since Capt Semrau's name was mentioned a little UFI for anyone that cares is that Rob in the Para's for 3 years before joining the CF.  He told me a couple of stories once.
> 
> ...



Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (6 Sep 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D


Negatron.  Either he never mentioned it, or I forgot.

Hairdressers?  Do tell! *grabs popcorn*


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D


According to what looks like it might be an excerpt from his book at Scribd.com and what looks like a preview of a bit more of the book at Google Books, it was Second Para:


> .... I had been in Afghanistan once before, as a member of the British Army’s Second Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, so I had a better clue than most of what we were about to get into ....


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> You're the one being silly.  When you are teaching section attacks, teach section attacks.  You want to teach philosophy?  Fine, do it over a beer at the mess later on. Crantor is right - the troops need to focus on reacting correctly, not being a "field tactics philosopher" whose actions are dependent on what they believe the media might think of their actions.



It's not philosophy.  It's posing a question to soldiers about their training and tactics that may very well be overlooked by the chain of command.  As recceguy said its a leadership issue but it's better to raise a question and set soldiers up for success. 

We will have to just disagree, I think sitting in a mess having drinks with the boys is the worst place to discuss something as serious as what to do with a wounded enemy soldier when you're being hunted down.  No one will remember that. IMO the best time is during training in a fighting environment. Making someone think and make a snap decision based on the situation doesn't detract from their drills.


----------



## MeatheadMick (6 Sep 2012)

I gotta say I'm pretty on the fence about asking the question while training.

Obviously, 'soldier first' you want the job done quickly, efficiently, and without second guessing... which is the reason for training and training and training some more. You want the troops to go do what they gotta do without questioning orders, or themselves. They need to be able to advance to contact, kill the enemy, and get the hell back to the FOB. They shouldn't have to flop moral questions in their heads when safety is at jeopardy.

However... professionally, and legally, we gotta follow the laws of armed conflict and ROE's. We all have to understand the repercussions our actions can have, and sometimes the snap decision made in the heat of battle isn't going to necessarily be the 'best' answer. There could be a lot of armchair quarterbacking, and you have an obligation to yourself to make the informed decision. This is obviously the reason why we have such briefings and lectures and dry training.

I don't think the question would be raised as the pairs are going through the lanes though. Having a thought-provoking process at end ex is what any good AAR should be about. The classic hot wash question of "what can you do better next time?" comes to mind. Of course we can always discuss what we would do in any given scenario, but as always, shooting a Lockheed Martin vs an enemy combatant is always going to be different. 

Situation Dictates.


----------

