American Soldiers Flees and left Truck Driver to die.
-
I still think they should be armed.All they need is to be trained basic rifle handling which coming frm the USA they would have had in their country where guns are legal.To make use of it tactically that's another matter.Originally posted by moca:As I remember, there's 2 response to an ambush:
* Get out, or...
* Fight your way out.
In the heat of battle, it is sometimes easy to confuse the 2.
As the armed escort was driving off, the truck behind it was still mobile. It was only after a while that the trucks start to get disabled.
So if you are the escort vehicle, what would you have done? In hindsight, the thing to do was to turn back and pick up the drivers of the disabled trucks.
In hindsight everything is clear.
Everyone makes mistakes especially in the confusion of battle.
As commander of your vehicle, you are responsible to the lives of the troops under you first, the truck drivers second. If you go back, you could get everyone killed and achieve nothing. Hard decision.
Arming the truck drivers is out of the questions. First of all, they are not trained.
Also, I think the author of the film survived because he wasn't firing a weapon and the insurgents kinda forgot about him. -
well if u've made the choice to accept the responsibility and be a soldier and u're being paid for it, the least u can do is to NOT abandon those responsibilities.Originally posted by Fatum:it happens to tbe best of men I suppose ...
it's easy to sit behind a computer screen and snipe at them ...
but when it happens to us in real life, who's to know who will run and who will fight ? ....
those of us who have also made OUR choices in NOT being soldiers and have taken the responsibility of making that choice then have every right to criticize those who accept the responsibility and the pay that comes along with it, and then abandon that responsibility. -
i salute those truck drivers who have taken on the responsibility of being un-armed non-combatants who could still get killed anyway in a war zone. they have much bigger balls than those soldiers methinks
-
You proptray this as a mistake, but this article suggests that the behaviour is systematic --> "American Valour? All Hogwash"Originally posted by moca:...
Everyone makes mistakes especially in the confusion of battle.
As commander of your vehicle, you are responsible to the lives of the troops under you first, the truck drivers second. If you go back, you could get everyone killed and achieve nothing. Hard decision.
Arming the truck drivers is out of the questions. First of all, they are not trained.
Also, I think the author of the film survived because he wasn't firing a weapon and the insurgents kinda forgot about him.
I highlight, in particular, the followingIndian truck drivers who returned after working in Iraq have a poor impression of American soldiers and their valour.
You also appear to try and justify the bnehaviour on the basis of an increased chance of survivability. But what about the misssion? Survivablity is important, but so is the mission. If the aim is to protect the convoy, then steps must be taken towards actually protecting. To abandon the mission on the basis of an increased likelihood of survivability is, imo, very unsoldierly behaviour.
According to their accounts, whenever armed militants attacked a convoy of trucks ferrying supplies to US troops in Iraq, the escort vehicles carrying American soldiers, instead of protecting the convoy, would be the first to flee leaving the unarmed and hapless truck drivers to fend for themselves.
2nd, you say that arming the drivers is out of the question because they are not trained. You also suggest that the driver survived because he was not shooting back. I think you are mistaken on the latter point and misguided on the former.
Re arming the drivers, it would not take much to train the drivers in basic rifle handling skills. It is not difficult to learn how to fire/mantain a rifle + roe. That could be taught in half a day. In fact, if hard pressed, that could be taught in a matter of hours. Also why should a lack of formal training preclude the carrying of weapons? This is a country where everyman and his goat is armed. To preclude the carrying of weapons on the basis of a lack of formal training is surely folly. At best, this is a safety issue - the coy does not want its drivers to hurt themselves/ hurt others. I think however, that this is a PR issue - the coy does not want to risk having its reputation stained from having its employees shooting ppl and does not want to be seen as a mercenary coy.
Re the driver's suvival - If you look at the news report, about 3 other drivers died that day. One of them was dragged from his truck, and stripped. Clearly then, the drivers are targers whether or not they are fighting back. In fact, I would say that they are more attractive targets simply because they are unarmed. -
why do you think medals are given out to soldiers for bravery, valour in combat ? ... because it is something extrordinary, something exceptional ... it is normal to feel fear, and different people react differently under fire, in anycase, read my post again, in a convoy ambust, first thing you do it to get out of the kill zone, for that piece of real estate has been pre-sighted, if you stay in it, you're dead, every tactical text will tell you the same thing, you fight only if you're trapped there ... infact, I think it was part of their doctrine untill very recently, because it was giving the insurgents (and various general-civillians around the world) the impression that the soldiers didn't have the balls to stand and fight ...Originally posted by HENG@:well if u've made the choice to accept the responsibility and be a soldier and u're being paid for it, the least u can do is to NOT abandon those responsibilities.
those of us who have also made OUR choices in NOT being soldiers and have taken the responsibility of making that choice then have every right to criticize those who accept the responsibility and the pay that comes along with it, and then abandon that responsibility.
do you suppose you can order someone to be brave ? ... we're not talking about asking someone to type up a report or fix a car's transmission here ...
however, the purpose of this thread seems to be to denigrate US soldiers, in that case I'm wasting my time ... -
Fully agree with you! Unlike some coward who keep on trying to come up with excuses for those stupid ball less yankee. Just becos in reality those yankee action doesn't tally with his illusion of super hero Americans . As i say,if it is some Africa soldier. These idiot will not hestitate to condemm them!Originally posted by scabstermooch:You also appear to try and justify the bnehaviour on the basis of an increased chance of survivability. But what about the misssion? Survivablity is important, but so is the mission. If the aim is to protect the convoy, then steps must be taken towards actually protecting. To abandon the mission on the basis of an increased likelihood of survivability is, imo, very unsoldierly behaviour.
2nd, you say that arming the drivers is out of the question because they are not trained. You also suggest that the driver survived because he was not shooting back. I think you are mistaken on the latter point and misguided on the former.
Re arming the drivers, it would not take much to train the drivers in basic rifle handling skills. It is not difficult to learn how to fire/mantain a rifle + roe. That could be taught in half a day. In fact, if hard pressed, that could be taught in a matter of hours. Also why should a lack of formal training preclude the carrying of weapons? This is a country where everyman and his goat is armed. To preclude the carrying of weapons on the basis of a lack of formal training is surely folly. At best, this is a safety issue - the coy does not want its drivers to hurt themselves/ hurt others. I think however, that this is a PR issue - the coy does not want to risk having its reputation stained from having its employees shooting ppl and does not want to be seen as a mercenary coy.
Re the driver's suvival - If you look at the news report, about 3 other drivers died that day. One of them was dragged from his truck, and stripped. Clearly then, the drivers are targers whether or not they are fighting back. In fact, I would say that they are more attractive targets simply because they are unarmed.
Ok... I may sound harsh. I will say not all American soldier r coward,some indeed deserve our respect but i will say most r rubbish! -
oh yes, you're very brave, calling others idiots behind the computer screen ....Originally posted by zenden9:Fully agree with you! Unlike some coward who keep on trying to come up with excuses for those stupid ball less yankee. Just becos in reality those yankee action doesn't tally with his illusion of super hero Americans . As i say,if it is some Africa soldier. These idiot will not hestitate to condemm them!
Ok... I may sound harsh. I will say not all American soldier r coward,some indeed deserve our respect but i will say most r rubbish!
I thought perhaps this tread would be about Soldiers or soldiering here, but I was wrong, it's about American soldiers ... and some people here apparently has an intense dislike for them, if that's the case, then I'm wasting my time, because others will continue to grind their personal axes regardless ....
you guys have fun ... -
Better than u flag waving American Lackeys. It is a fact,they r cowards and u still want to defend them?Originally posted by Fatum:oh yes, you're very brave, calling others idiots behind the computer screen ....
I thought perhaps this tread would be about Soldiers or soldiering here, but I was wrong, it's about American soldiers ... and some people here apparently has an intense dislike for them, if that's the case, then I'm wasting my time, because others will continue to grind their personal axes regardless ....
you guys have fun ...
I never say I'm brave. I just stating a fact abt them and u! What so work up?
-
do you know how to read ? ... you don't get what I'm trying to say do you ? ....Originally posted by zenden9:Better than u flag waving American Lackeys. It is a fact,they r cowards and u still want to defend them?
I never say I'm brave. I just stating a fact abt them and u! What so work up? -
Didn't i state very clearly? Oh.. I think u forget yr glasses...Originally posted by Fatum:do you know how to read ? ... you don't get what I'm trying to say do you ? .... -
Actually, I wouldn't call the soldiers involved cowards.Originally posted by zenden9:Better than u flag waving American Lackeys. It is a fact,they r cowards and u still want to defend them?
I never say I'm brave. I just stating a fact abt them and u! What so work up?
I think what is happening is the US army/officers in charge hasn't given much thought to this whole escorting business. They are executing drills which would be acceptable if they were doing patrols. Those drills, however, are wholly inappropriate when the mission is to protect a convoy. Worse, the report i cited indicates that they have been applying this SOP to these types of missions for a while already.
The soldiers involved are probably only doing what they were taught. Soldiers are not really the sharpest people around - hours of marching up and down the parade square will do that to you.
The video, as it is shown, is however an indictment on the US army, and the Civvy company invovled. It , at least in this instance, highlights a lack of professionalism. Of course, I could be wrong and the soldiers were ordered to bugger off at the first sign of trouble even when they were supposed to be protecting others. In that case, then I think we can say that the US army is guilty of institutional cowardice. -
Ah... just STFU!Originally posted by zenden9:Didn't i state very clearly? Oh.. I think u forget yr glasses...
-
I think BBC said the surviving driver was, ironically, fired by the company that hired him. Anyway, these drivers know the risks. The numbers already killed or wounded is quite high.Originally posted by scabstermooch:Actually, I wouldn't call the soldiers involved cowards.
I think what is happening is the US army/officers in charge hasn't given much thought to this whole escorting business. They are executing drills which would be acceptable if they were doing patrols. Those drills, however, are wholly inappropriate when the mission is to protect a convoy. Worse, the report i cited indicates that they have been applying this SOP to these types of missions for a while already.
The soldiers involved are probably only doing what they were taught. Soldiers are not really the sharpest people around - hours of marching up and down the parade square will do that to you.
The video, as it is shown, is however an indictment on the US army, and the Civvy company invovled. It , at least in this instance, highlights a lack of professionalism. Of course, I could be wrong and the soldiers were ordered to bugger off at the first sign of trouble even when they were supposed to be protecting others. In that case, then I think we can say that the US army is guilty of institutional cowardice.
The question here is that, how come these high risks jobs are sub-contracted to civvys?
Any guesses? -
You, have seen and heard only one side of the story.Originally posted by scabstermooch:You also appear to try and justify the bnehaviour ...., very unsoldierly behaviour.
2nd, you say .....
Until proven guilty, let's not condemn anyone yet. -
Well, regardless, what the PMCs are paid and signed up for. The duty of Armed Escorts are to protect them and to prevent attack, especially in a war-zone (where you are the invader and occupier ).
This being said... the Ecsort would also expect attacks. Saying that they are untrained for and not expecting ambush, thus fleeing - just doesn't cut it.
I mean they are travelling in a Hmmve, that could stop AK rounds in many circumstances. They could easily pickup or asked the driver to get in, than to turn-tail and flee.
In seemed, the many US troops are finding out that this is not what what they had signed up for... -
well bro .... how do you find out that they are only armed with AKs ? ....Originally posted by MobyDog:Well, regardless, what the PMCs are paid and signed up for. The duty of Armed Escorts are to protect them and to prevent attack, especially in a war-zone (where you are the invader and occupier ).
This being said... the Ecsort would also expect attacks. Saying that they are untrained for and not expecting ambush, thus fleeing - just doesn't cut it.
I mean they are travelling in a Hmmve, that could stop AK rounds in many circumstances. They could easily pickup or asked the driver to get in, than to turn-tail and flee.
In seemed, the many US troops are finding out that this is not what what they had signed up for...
sit there as ducks for a while and see if any RPGs or further IEDs hit you ? ...
it's easy for us to indict, easy to snipe at them ... but truly, who can predict any person's reactions under fire ? ...
in anycase, I've mentioned above that it's part of their doctrine, I wouldn't go as far as calling it institutional cowardice as the threadstarter did, but it does make logical sense, remember your ambushes during NS ? ... you linger in the killzone, you're dead too ...
that said, I believe this particular doctrine is being reviewed by the US military, cos their brass realised that this is making them look cowardly to the insurgents ...
the only thing I suppose they can be faulted for was the length of time it took them to reorg and come back ... even a QRF shouldn't be more than half an hour away on paper ... -
But this isn't about ambush drills is it? This is about protection.Originally posted by Fatum:well bro .... how do you find out that they are only armed with AKs ? ....
sit there as ducks for a while and see if any RPGs or further IEDs hit you ? ...
it's easy for us to indict, easy to snipe at them ... but truly, who can predict any person's reactions under fire ? ...
in anycase, I've mentioned above that it's part of their doctrine, I wouldn't go as far as calling it institutional cowardice as the threadstarter did, but it does make logical sense, remember your ambushes during NS ? ... you linger in the killzone, you're dead too ...
that said, I believe this particular doctrine is being reviewed by the US military, cos their brass realised that this is making them look cowardly to the insurgents ...
the only thing I suppose they can be faulted for was the length of time it took them to reorg and come back ... even a QRF shouldn't be more than half an hour away on paper ...
If I was to take up a close protection assignment, would you say I have failed my mission if I abandoned my client under the guise of looking for reinforcements at the first instance? Or ought I have helped bring my client to safety? That is the crux of the issue here.
I think you miss the context. Their mission was to protect. Not to hunt insurgents or recce. They are there to protect. They put on their uniforms, brought their weapons and told these people they are there to protect. A reasonable person would conclude that should something happen, they could count on these guys.
The video bears out a different reality. They practiced drills which are wholly unsuitable for the mission. They have been doing it for years and they are still doing it despite the fact that there must have been feedback.
As I said above, I think this is a US army problem. I doubt these soldiers have been specially trained for such missions because they are acting as if they were on a fighting patrol. The US army has presumably failed to tell them to act otherwise (coz the US army said the soldiers did nothing wrong).
WHy? 1) the US army doesn't know better, OR 2) the US army doesn't Care.
If 1) Then I think it is reasonable to conclude that the US army is acting very unprofessionally. If 2), then as I said above, they are guilty of institutional cowardice.
{opinions founded on events as protrayed by the video - Video might be wrong!] -
He is a brave man. He was shot twice and yet he was surprisingly calm. Brass balls.Originally posted by moca:I think BBC said the surviving driver was, ironically, fired by the company that hired him. Anyway, these drivers know the risks. The numbers already killed or wounded is quite high.
The question here is that, how come these high risks jobs are sub-contracted to civvys?
Any guesses?
These jobs are given to civilian companies probably because it is cheaper financially and logistically.
The US army would have had to train its soldiers and provide after care to its soldiers and their families. All these will cost time and money. -
clients ? ... what clients ? ... this is convoy protection we're talking about here, not protecting some VIP bro ... you're right, if it was rumsfeld or cheney (which most unfortunately for US and the world, it wasn't) you're farked, you've failed your mission, if it's convoy protection, then you get as much men (and material) out of the killzone as possible, reorg, then come back, you don't sit there waiting for RPGs to hit and for them to annihilate you ....Originally posted by scabstermooch:But this isn't about ambush drills is it? This is about protection.
If I was to take up a close protection assignment, would you say I have failed my mission if I abandon my client at the first instance? Or ought I have helped bring my client to safety? That is the crux of the issue here.
though you've inadvertently brought up the real crux of the issue here, the real culprits of this tragic incident, were not the soldiers doing what they were trained and taught to do, but the REMFs and politicos who hired CIVILIAN contractors to ferry MILITARY supplies ! (pork barrel politics of course, campaign contributions, contracts ... whatever) ... they've taken outsourcing to a new artform there, reconstruction professionals are guarded by civillian blackwater chaps, construction and logistics handled by private contractors instead of the military. Haliburton the company is no angel, nor is KBR, (hint, they are based in TEXAS, and is the largest construction and logistic contractor for the US military)
if you're looking for sniping targets, snipe at the bastard company directors who sent unarmed civilians there, snipe at the companies who are profiting from the war, snipe at the politicians who actually allowed such work to be outsourced, snipe at the army brass that didn't stand in their way, I'll join you in it too. But don't pick up the poor grunts who signed up perhaps for that federal college fees grant perhaps ... or some notion of duty to the flag ? ...
you and I, many of us here have worn a uniform once, so what's with all this savage indictment ? ... or was it because the closest we've come to real fire were live fire exercises ? where the only danger was that bobo shooter on the saw ? or the grenade of unknown vintage ? yes, there is a soldier's code, we have certain expectations of a soldier's behaviour, but remember that we're all humans in the end ... -
I hardly think most people realise that there is a limiter on even soldiers. They are humans, and different packages require different kinds of deliverymen.Originally posted by Fatum:clients ? ... what clients ? ... this is convoy protection we're talking about here, not protecting some VIP bro ... you're right, if it was rumsfeld or cheney (which most unfortunately for US and the world, it wasn't) you're farked, you've failed your mission, if it's convoy protection, then you get as much men (and material) out of the killzone as possible, reorg, then come back, you don't sit there waiting for RPGs to hit and for them to annihilate you ....
though you've inadvertently brought up the real crux of the issue here, the real culprits of this tragic incident, were not the soldiers doing what they were trained and taught to do, but the REMFs and politicos who hired CIVILIAN contractors to ferry MILITARY supplies ! (pork barrel politics of course, campaign contributions, contracts ... whatever) ... they've taken outsourcing to a new artform there, reconstruction professionals are guarded by civillian blackwater chaps, construction and logistics handled by private contractors instead of the military. Haliburton the company is no angel, nor is KBR, (hint, they are based in TEXAS, and is the largest construction and logistic contractor for the US military)
if you're looking for sniping targets, snipe at the bastard company directors who sent unarmed civilians there, snipe at the companies who are profiting from the war, snipe at the politicians who actually allowed such work to be outsourced, snipe at the army brass that didn't stand in their way, I'll join you in it too. But don't pick up the poor grunts who signed up perhaps for that federal college fees grant perhaps ... or some notion of duty to the flag ? ...
you and I, many of us here have worn a uniform once, so what's with all this savage indictment ? ... or was it because the closest we've come to real fire were live fire exercises ? where the only danger was that bobo shooter on the saw ? or the grenade of unknown vintage ? yes, there is a soldier's code, we have certain expectations of a soldier's behaviour, but remember that we're all humans in the end ...
It's squarely blamed at the company who hired the drivers and did not let them carry a PDW. -
No one is saying that the Escort are suppose to linger and fight it out... If they think those supplies isn't worth protecting, the least they could do it save the poor-arse driver.Originally posted by Fatum:well bro .... how do you find out that they are only armed with AKs ? ....
sit there as ducks for a while and see if any RPGs or further IEDs hit you ? ...
it's easy for us to indict, easy to snipe at them ... but truly, who can predict any person's reactions under fire ? ...
in anycase, I've mentioned above that it's part of their doctrine, I wouldn't go as far as calling it institutional cowardice as the threadstarter did, but it does make logical sense, remember your ambushes during NS ? ... you linger in the killzone, you're dead too ...
that said, I believe this particular doctrine is being reviewed by the US military, cos their brass realised that this is making them look cowardly to the insurgents ...
the only thing I suppose they can be faulted for was the length of time it took them to reorg and come back ... even a QRF shouldn't be more than half an hour away on paper ...
They would simply need to drive up close to the truck and ask the driver to hop on and pedal the metal... take what a minute or so (if they are slow.) You think it easy to have an RPG hit while on the move ?
Simply put, they failed their mission and somewhat acted like cowards. If those trucks were transporting billion dollars belonging to Cheney and Rumsfield, and they fled. What do you think will happened. -
All the same, they are an instrument of invaders and occupiers. who invade them, base on false pretense... legit targets.Originally posted by Fatum:clients ? ... what clients ? ... this is convoy protection we're talking about here, not protecting some VIP bro ... you're right, if it was rumsfeld or cheney (which most unfortunately for US and the world, it wasn't) you're farked, you've failed your mission, if it's convoy protection, then you get as much men (and material) out of the killzone as possible, reorg, then come back, you don't sit there waiting for RPGs to hit and for them to annihilate you ....
though you've inadvertently brought up the real crux of the issue here, the real culprits of this tragic incident, were not the soldiers doing what they were trained and taught to do, but the REMFs and politicos who hired CIVILIAN contractors to ferry MILITARY supplies ! (pork barrel politics of course, campaign contributions, contracts ... whatever) ... they've taken outsourcing to a new artform there, reconstruction professionals are guarded by civillian blackwater chaps, construction and logistics handled by private contractors instead of the military. Haliburton the company is no angel, nor is KBR, (hint, they are based in TEXAS, and is the largest construction and logistic contractor for the US military)
if you're looking for sniping targets, snipe at the bastard company directors who sent unarmed civilians there, snipe at the companies who are profiting from the war, snipe at the politicians who actually allowed such work to be outsourced, snipe at the army brass that didn't stand in their way, I'll join you in it too. But don't pick up the poor grunts who signed up perhaps for that federal college fees grant perhaps ... or some notion of duty to the flag ? ...
you and I, many of us here have worn a uniform once, so what's with all this savage indictment ? ... or was it because the closest we've come to real fire were live fire exercises ? where the only danger was that bobo shooter on the saw ? or the grenade of unknown vintage ? yes, there is a soldier's code, we have certain expectations of a soldier's behaviour, but remember that we're all humans in the end ... -
If the truck drivers are armed, or if they are US Army personnels driving, it will not deter an ambush, right?
OK, now that we're all agreed on that, let's move on to the ambush itself.
Imagine you are in the Humvee POV as the vehicle commander with 3 other men with you.
You are all driving along, you are the lead vehicle, there are 2 more Humvees dispersed among the trucks.
Suddenly, there's a huge explosion and heavy small arms fire, an ambush in force is sprung all along the road.
In the confusion of the first few seconds, you don't know who's been hit and who's alive. The truck behind you is OK and still mobile.
The enemy cannot be seen amongst the houses lining the road and there is no clear visible target and the firing gets heavier. But you have no idea the strength of the force attacking you.
Being the armed escort - and ignoring all SOP - what would be the right thing to do? -
you forgot about radio communcation with the driver and visual confirmation by the other three men in the HMMVE on the truck.Originally posted by moca:If the truck drivers are armed, or if they are US Army personnels driving, it will not deter an ambush, right?
OK, now that we're all agreed on that, let's move on to the ambush itself.
Imagine you are in the Humvee POV as the vehicle commander with 3 other men with you.
You are all driving along, you are the lead vehicle, there are 2 more Humvees dispersed among the trucks.
Suddenly, there's a huge explosion and heavy small arms fire, an ambush in force is sprung all along the road.
In the confusion of the first few seconds, you don't know who's been hit and who's alive. The truck behind you is OK and still mobile.
The enemy cannot be seen amongst the houses lining the road and there is no clear visible target and the firing gets heavier. But you have no idea the strength of the force attacking you.
Being the armed escort - and ignoring all SOP - what would be the right thing to do?
One thing I notice, from the video is that the rear Escort didn't pass the truck. It may have provide support fire for the truck-driver from the rear, that's why the Iragi Freedom fighter didn't approach the truck.
Or that the rear escort turn-tail towards the rear direction.
But after thinking for a while, the other rear truck passed the stalled truck, in most circumstances, the rear escort would do the same. So simply judging from the Video is unfair, the rear escort could be support it from behind.
But my perception of the front escort remains unchanged... -
u know, however extraordinary they may have to be, they CHOOSE to pick this resposibility up. In the end, life is about being responsible for your own choices. Did anyone put a gun to their heads n force them to join the army? They're not SAF, they don't have conscription. Abandoning your duty and responsibility after u have CHOOSEN to take them up, can never be justified in anyway.Originally posted by Fatum:why do you think medals are given out to soldiers for bravery, valour in combat ? ... because it is something extrordinary, something exceptional ... it is normal to feel fear, and different people react differently under fire, in anycase, read my post again, in a convoy ambust, first thing you do it to get out of the kill zone, for that piece of real estate has been pre-sighted, if you stay in it, you're dead, every tactical text will tell you the same thing, you fight only if you're trapped there ... infact, I think it was part of their doctrine untill very recently, because it was giving the insurgents (and various general-civillians around the world) the impression that the soldiers didn't have the balls to stand and fight ...
do you suppose you can order someone to be brave ? ... we're not talking about asking someone to type up a report or fix a car's transmission here ...
however, the purpose of this thread seems to be to denigrate US soldiers, in that case I'm wasting my time ...
And please do not be so condesending. In JC i read up military tactics as a hobby. Don't assume I know nothing about tactics. The fact here, laid plain and bare, is still that a miliatry escort abandoned an unarmed civilian convoy in a combat zone. No matter what doctrines say, I am under the impression that one has to put one's mission 1st. They don't even need to fight to bring the trucks out. All they needed to do was to stall enough to allow the drivers to bail out and escape with them.
Finally, while u can't order someone to be brave, U'd expect someone who has taken up the responsibility to try their best to be brave. Putting this aside tho, by your own statement, u have admitted that the American soldiers WERE cowardly. And when soldiers are cowardly, no matter how justified it is, they have to face up to the music because when they accepted the responsibility of being a soldier, they knew the risks and they know the consequences of not being brave. And now, they must face the consequences.