Let me give you a clue. Those systems are incredibly expensive and the tech involved highly classified. Israel deploys them in their own country to protect their civilian population.
To expose that tech in a highly unstable area to protect combat troops is never going to happen.
Only a clueless civilian would make such ludicrous an argument. The people deployed to such areas are trained combat troops. The risks of deployment to danger zones is what they signed up for, are trained for, and fully understand the risks of.
Not a one of them would agree to expose such advanced and classified technology to protect them.
In fact, they would give their lives to protect such from falling into the hands of any enemy.
The idiot who wrote this article hasn’t a clue about the implications of what he advocates for. In fact, his article screams loudly to his ignorance.
Not as defenseless as they were in Benghazi I bet!!!
We need to get our guys out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria pronto. There is no public support for missions in these places and no clear mission to fulfill besides perpetually patrolling perpetual belligerents, which is not America’s responsibility and experience hath shewn leads to poor outcomes.
[Only a clueless civilian would make such ludicrous an argument. The people deployed to such areas are trained combat troops. The risks of deployment to danger zones is what they signed up for, are trained for, and fully understand the risks of.
Not a one of them would agree to expose such advanced and classified technology to protect them.]
i would add consideration of the possibility that the calculus had already been made that the specific circumstances did not warrant deployment of such an expensive system. using a complex system incurs its own risks, such as risk of capture and reverse engineering, or reverse deployment, or deployment incurring civilian or friendly casualties, and/or that alternative and more cost effective, safer methods had been found and employed— such as bunkers.
most everyone at a desert military base imho needs bunkers. if bunkers can do the job, then why throw extra costly and unnecessary hardware at a problem that has already been solved?
+1
There was missile defense. They’re called bunkers.
There was missile defense. They’re called bunkers.
How hard would it be to build underground bunkers for these types of attacks?
That said, the sooner we leave these hellholes the better.
Ignorance, or knowingly advocating for policies that would be adverse to our interests?
Your reply is a breath of fresh air. It makes sense.
The idiot who wrote this article hasn’t a clue about the implications of what he advocates for. In fact, his article screams loudly to his ignorance.
and that explains the use of the phrase “troops huddled”. Makes it sound as if they are cowering in fear, rather than say “troops guarding”.
Damn good points
And then there was FraudCo, who landed one of our drones in Iran FOR Iran, and handed over any other financial assets and personnel and materiel to Iran he could as well.
But hey, “It was theirs anyway”!
(Here, I’m absolutely sure I need the /s)