I wonder where the dead set certainty that the army will save them comes from?
I wonder where the dead set certainty that the army will save them comes from?
Do you really think that every one of the millions of American citizens who travel or live overseas each year is supposed to tell the US about their current location?
I didn't presume there was such a requirement, but I also wouldn't have been surprised if the fine print somewhere made it a selectively enforced requirement. It doesn't strike me as more or less onerous than some other actions that are currently required.
There is no "supposed to."
I think you are correct, but when an official government agency "encourages" a certain behavior, it's not too much of a stretch to presume that one is "supposed to" do it:
We encourage all U.S. citizens travelling or residing
overseas to notify the closest U.S. Embassy or Consulate of
their contact information so that, in an emergency, we can
contact them to provide important safety and security
information, or support during a crisis.
https://step.state.gov/STEP/Pages/Common/FAQ.aspxWhat would your guess be as to the chances that some sort of registration will be made requirement in the future?
Such a requirement is very unlikely for travelers. It's just not practical given how often plans can change. (I visited a salt mine in Austria. To my surprise we crossed into Germany during the tour. Would I need to tell the US about those 20 minutes in Germany, and when?) How much would it cost to run such a system? What happens if the system breaks - and we know the foreign tourist tracking system breaks? What are the advantages to the US?
It's more possible for permanent residency. But the US doesn't even require that of domestic citizens, despite the clear advantages there would be to know where people live. So I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And what would be the penalty of getting it wrong?
And yes they were expecting a Saving Private Ryan moment.
generally US citizenship meant much more in the past than it means now since there are more interesting places to live (albeit in long term US might still prove as best spot... or not).
Also the Americans I knew seemed to expect helicopters to come pick them up and all that. Saying to your citizens they need to get out and we've got a navy ship in port that you can get on if you want isn't really evacuating your citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_airlift_of_Indians_from_K...
Also, a naval vessel absolutely qualifies as evacuating your citizens.
No it's not. Especially so with the civil wars in the Arab world, they didn't spring up virtually overnight and almost across the board started well away from the capital cities where most expats and embassies/consulates are.
> Give me an example of a developed military that's gone into an armed conflict to rescue citizens. The closest I can think of is the rescuing of hostages. That's not quite the same thing though and very rare.
There are a variety of examples of this by practically every developed country. In the last two decades it's been relatively common in Africa and the Middle East. The US in particular has a number of such cases which can be found in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
Hostage rescues are very rare, I agree. That's an extreme measure.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/01/american-civili...
The US evacuated government staff and contractors, but abandoned anyone else.