First, let me say that I am well aware of and greatly appreciate that solemn promise. All of us are. We are all very grateful the whole system is there for us. It speaks volumes to the character and values of our nation. So thank you for that—it was and is a huge deal to the me and to everyone I ever flew with.
. . . and now I’m gonna disagree with you.
This was not a manned asset.
This is not the first MQ-9 wreckage our enemies have ever acquired. MQ-9s have either crashed or been shot down all over the Middle East. Nor is it the first asset we’ve ever left for our enemies to acquire.
Further, parking a recovery ship and escorts a hundred miles off an active warzone that has already seen multiple cases of target mis-identification and engagement from both combatants all to avoid a potentially bad optic is a pretty big ask. All the more so when a friendly press (for once!) will simply twist whatever propaganda the Russians come up with from the recovered wreckage to fit the western narrative.
Not that anyone’s asking me, but I’m gonna need a lot more reward to offset that heaping pile of risk before I sign off on it.
All good, and I understand what you're saying. I think you're missing the forest for the trees here; I don't like the response or the precedence it's setting. Recovering the drone is a show of strength, not a tactical decision of risk vs reward.
When Gen Milley gets on TV and openly says, "Hey, cool, you took out one of our planes- but we don't want to get into a shooting war", that's a bad thing. And it sets a bad precedence, because it moves the Overton window ever so slightly.
"We (America) can go anywhere, any time to get our assets back" > "Well, it's pretty ok if someone shoots down our planes as long as their unmanned "
(we are here) > "Ok, but seriously, stop scrambling fighters to interdict our manned assets; we aren't going to do anything about it but quit it" > "We are now going to engage in full scale DTACC shooting war because one of your planes clipped/shot down a manned asset."
It's the slippery slope of deterrence (which absolutely cannot happen without real consequence) we are currently experiencing. You damage our planes, we decimate one of your bases. That prevents further incursions. Leave the guy in question out of it- but when you make the call to lob some liberation devices at enemy of America just before you sit down to chocolate cake with a pacing challenge world leader, that establishes boundaries and deters future threats.
We fell all over ourselves to scramble teams of people to recover a spy balloon that was nothing more of a distraction, and apparently "happened all the time", with what ROI, again? But this act of aggression in international airspace gets- a press conference and some finger wagging?
Sort of reminds me of, "Listen, Jack- if Russia just has a little incursion, who knows what we will do? You know?"
ETA- to your point about "not the first time", I am not disagreeing. But timing is everything- it would be a very good time to show that American strength on the world's stage. Obviously my opinion.