Is it true that US military policy is to save a fellow soldier at the cost of saving a US civilian?

Question

should a choice be necessary. I have no doubt that we are always trying to save innocent lives, but I think it should come first even at the cost of military life. Someone told me the rationale behind this was that saving a soldier first would save more civilians down the road. I think this is arrogant projection if true. The only honor in fighting is the sacrifice of military men for the sake of innocent civilian life. Innocent being relative, of course.

My source of information is a military wife who says she was told this by her husband, a sergeant in Army. I hoped that it was not true, and questioned her sincerity. She said others had confirmed his statement. I am inclined to believe the answers here, gentlemen

Brian is excluded from my gentlemen label. :)

Answer 1

The only time a civilian life is not as important as a solider is if the citizen poses a direct threat,and they fall under the Rules of Engagement Chris Maddy Fort Stu GA Military Police

Answer 2

No way in hell. No branch of the armed forces of the United States would ever sacrifice a civilian to save a fallen comrade in arms. What you may have heard is that the general conception is that you never leave men down in the field. Once the perimeter is secured and civilians (if any) are secured, most of our services will go back even for the dead.

Answer 3

Army men(All forces, Police, security forces etc...) are hired for saving civilians only...at the cost of their lives...isn't it?

Answer 4

Spent 20 years in the USMC, and never heard that one. Not true to the best of my knowledge.

Answer 5

Anyone who volunteers to serve our great country deserves saving over any coward who is afraid to serve their country.

Answer 6

Your military wife friend has it wrong. That is not a policy.

Answer 7

may b