All,
If we look at the historical settings between the two operations, I think we might find some interesting points and pointers to where things could have been different.
The following statements might be too generic, but let us look at their impact.
Eagle Claw
- US forces coming out of the shadow of Vietnam
- demoralised forces
- not being held in high esteem in the general population
- lack of expertise
- prone to political pressure
Neptune Spear
- professional
- Victors of ME
- Backing of the population at large
The political objectives of Eagle Claw might have been worthwhile. In all likelihood there might not have been any other way out of it.
The planning of it looks (in hindsight) like something not even Tom Clancy could have regarded as plausible.
Carter could probably have asked SAS or the Germans to do it. Maybe that would have been a success.
Neptune Spear was complex, but came off. Professional is the word, I think.
Both had technical difficulties (helicopters crashing, etc).
... and here it comes:
IF the US forces had come out of the shadows of Vietnam faster and obtained the same recognition as the forces of 2010, would we have seen a better planned and executed Eagle Claw?
Was the main reason for Eagle Claw to fail the amateur way it was planned? Was the US forces just not up to it 1979?
Ivan