[Yo Mama]

I wanted to post on the last book I read, Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell. I know he's been discussed here before, but for those that don't know he was part of a SEAL Team Operation Redwing in Afghanistan. He was the lone survivor out of his original team, and survived against all odds.

A few observations I had on this book:

1. The dedication and sacrifice our military makes for our every day lives to continue. Unbelievable the dedication they have for America, and we no doubt have the best Special Forces in the world.

2. Rules of engagement killed many good men in this battle. 3 men died directly due to rules of engagement, and my new passion when calling my reps is this issue. They make no sense, and are only put in place by those who would never engage an enemy on the battlefield.

3. Weapons: Looks like the 5.56 did it's job, pistols were useless. The team had 9 magazines each for their rifles, picking 3 extra before the mission as the team all had a bad feeling.

Amazing read, I would highly recommend this to read. I got alot out of it, and hope to contact Marcus to let him know that when he has the nightmares for the rest of his life of his team members (as he discussed in the book), to remember that we are grateful that he was doing his job, and ensuring our safety and freedom.

[Eschaton]

I've been meaning to pick this book up for a while now.

And watching Luttrell on the Glen Beck show was heartbreaking when they were talking about his dog.

[GunFun]

I applaud your stance against rules of engagement, however a navy seal should know better, and be trained differently IMO.

It's all about survival. Some other "regiments" are trained differently and I think it's sad that his death may have been due to substandard training. I can't verify that but it seems so.

Regardless, you are correct, and the final decision lies with the warrior in the battlefield. Period.

It should never lie with a politician sitting in his leather chair in Washington. Ever.

[GunFun]

Hard to say what happened but legislators in government have no authority to guide them unless they are former military and GOOD AT IT, and the final say is with the soldier on the ground to make the decisions. Period.

[fireflyfather]

Wow. I must be insane to think that the constitution should have the final word on this issue. (You know: civilian control of the military).


Sick thing to do to any man's dog, much less one who has gone through what this man did for his country.

[GunFun]

I think I agree with your signature more than anything.

"This is Darwinism. It goes back to the problem with society being that there are too many stupid people and not enough things to eat them."

;)

[Mr. Bojangles]

A good book, read it if you havn't yet.

[Shung]

great read indeed ! I hope they don't screw up the movie !

[Ric in Richmond]

After reading the book the movie is going to be tough to watch.

ROE killed those men and it will kill more in Afghanistan now.

[pikid89]

That was easily one of the best books i've ever read

This should be one of those books that all high school kids should read, if only to learn of the unwavering dedication these men have to their country and their job, not to mention the immense bravery under fire they showed

[youngda9]

I read it a couple months ago. It was EXCELLENT! Much respect to the men and women who go to war for all of us sitting back home.

I would like more information on why GunFun writes "I think it's sad that his death may have been due to substandard training. I can't verify that but it seems so."

The book is entitled "Lone SURVIVOR". Whose death are you referring to?

[BTin]

I would like more information on why GunFun writes "I think it's sad that his death may have been due to substandard training. I can't verify that but it seems so."

He writes this because he has not read the book. Part of the book describes how the SEALS get the best training in the world.

The lesson that I learned from the book is that these guys frequently put themselves in situations where death is immanent for the sake of our safety/freedom here at home. If you read the book, you will find out that even if they had killed those unarmed men, they probably would have been screwed anyway. The rules of engagement, plus their own conscience is what kept them from killing them.

This man's story has literally changed my attitude towards being more grateful for the lives that are given for us, and has made me work harder for myself and my country. God bless these guys, and God bless the USA.

[Yo Mama]

Part of the book describes how the SEALS get the best training in the world.


A good chunck of it to. Must have been 2 or 3 chapters of training, and I'd say it was pretty sufficient. Marcus was able to survive with his training. It was letting go 3 "unarmed" Afghans that lead to his team being attacked by the Taliban.

[Avenger29]

A good chunck of it to. Must have been 2 or 3 chapters of training, and I'd say it was pretty sufficient. Marcus was able to survive with his training. It was letting go 3 "unarmed" Afghans that lead to his team being attacked by the Taliban.

Yep, and it came down to a moral decision. Kill three civilians or let them go and very likely face discovery. Hard choice to make, very hard choice.

Our military is one of few that would have made the decision to let civilians live. One of the very few.

The same situation also happened to a recon team during Desert Storm- they were in a hide and were discovered by civilians. They were lucky to get out by the skin of their teeth.

[Warhawk83]

Sick thing to do to any man's dog, much less one who has gone through what this man did for his country.

Who did what to this man's dog?

I actually saw Marcus on a Hunting show, terrible story. Can't imagine how hard it is for him day to day.

[Warhawk83]

Never mind my question, I just found out what happened to the dog. For those of you that don't know.. 4 punk-ass teenagers drove around killing dogs late at night, and his therapy dog was one of them. Hopefully they'll get a proper welcome at prison.

[hpluseleven]

Yep, and it came down to a moral decision. Kill three civilians or let them go and very likely face discovery. Hard choice to make, very hard choice.

Our military is one of few that would have made the decision to let civilians live. One of the very few.

The same situation also happened to a recon team during Desert Storm- they were in a hide and were discovered by civilians. They were lucky to get out by the skin of their teeth.


The desert storm group was a British SAS team. The book is Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab and is an excellent read as is Lone Survivor.



This is THR, so Law of Armed Conflict, morality in war, etc are barely (if it all) relevant to this forum, but it's something that I'm very passionate about so I'll address it. I'm going to grossly oversimplify things because otherwise this post will end up being 100 pages long.

The politicians don't have jack to do with the ROE's. The lawyers do. Think of it this way: Some kid with a bunch of goats stumbles upon this SOF team in (fill in the country). You're on that team. This kid isn't in any military, for purposes of argument, he's not even carrying an AK. He poses no immediate threat to you and your team. Your choices are:
A. Let the kid go. He might go tell the Taliban where ya'll are, but he might not. And he's just a kid.
B. Kill him. Otherwise he might go tell the Taliban where ya'll are. But he might not. And remember, he's just a kid. And he's not a direct threat to you. Do you really want that on your conscience?

The problem with choice B is that if we start killing kids in situations like this, we (the US military) have become no better than the terrorists. We whine and complain about how they don't play 'by the rules' of war - using hospitals as bases, not respecting the geneva conventions, etc.

The argument that we should follow the geneva conventions so they will is retarded. They won't. There's nothing we can do to make them follow the geneva conventions. As a military member, the reason I want to follow the geneva conventions is so I can sleep at night. Shooting at someone who is (or is likely about to be) shooting at me is one thing. Shooting an unarmed kid because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is another. Yes, bad things happen in war. Yes kids die. But plenty of people die without having to execute an unarmed kid who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Avenger29]

The desert storm group was a British SAS team. The book is Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab and is an excellent read as is Lone Survivor.

No, there was an American team, too.

They were able to just barely get helicopters in for extraction. Just barely.

Unlike Luttrell's incident, the team in Desert Storm had constant contact with air support- F-16s for CAS and the helicopters to get them out. Luttrell's team ran into serious problems because they did not have working commo.

[hpluseleven]

Thanks for the correction, I was unaware of that group. Do you know who was involved or if there is a book about that story? I'd be interested in reading it if it's available.

[Ske1etor]

I started reading it the day after it came out... didn't put it down until I was done.

It was an awesome book.

[HK G3]

Advocating the killing of unarmed farmers reminds me of Enemy at the Gates, where the Nazi sniper hangs the kid to make a point.

Are you seriously advocating killing everything that moves?

Instead of saying they should have killed all these random passerby's, my question is why they didn't have fire-support. The second they came under heavy fire, the place should have been lit up.

Granted, I haven't read the book yet, but I would assume that since we have such uncontested air superiority, there is no reason for this type of incident without the enemy being lit up like a Christmas tree.

[Mikhail Weiss]

Avenger29
No, there was an American team, too.

Hpluseleven
Thanks for the correction, I was unaware of that group. Do you know who was involved or if there is a book about that story? I'd be interested in reading it if it's available.



I seem to recall seeing a news report about this identifying the guys as U.S. Army Rangers.

[j-easy]

I read the story about desert storm in "The Night Stalkers" its a book about the 160th SOAR, which are the army helicopter pilots that fly the special operations missions. It is a good book, in the book they described the rescue of the special operations guys that were compromised like 150 miles behind enemy lines at the beginning of desert storm. A kid stumbled across there position overlooking a highway and the SF guys let her go and she alerted the local forces and iraqi's showed up by the truckloads to take out the 3 guys. they then explain how they barely rescued them, its really amazing that any of them survived at all

http://www.amazon.com/Night-Stalkers-Michael-J-Durant/dp/0399153926

[Shung]

I read the book, and I think the better option was to tie and hide the 3 shepperds, and get the hell out of there, without trying to complete the mission. As a matter a fact, the mission was compromised as soon as they were discovered. But once again, I wasnt there, and I ain't a SEAL, so i don't judge them. I just give my opinion, but I understand it's easy to do it when you know what happend in the end.

[j-easy]

I read the book, and I think the better option was to tie and hide the 3 shepperds, and get the hell out of there, without trying to complete the mission. As a matter a fact, the mission was compromised as soon as they were discovered. But once again, I wasnt there, and I ain't a SEAL, so i don't judge them. I just give my opinion, but I understand it's easy to do it when you know what happend in the end.
yeah I think I would try to hold them prisoner until the rescue helicopter showed up to pick me up, at which point I would set them free as I hop on the helicopter to leave, but there's probably some law or international agreement against that. but like the other poster, i'm just armchair quarterbacking here

[Avenger29]

Instead of saying they should have killed all these random passerby's, my question is why they didn't have fire-support. The second they came under heavy fire, the place should have been lit up.


They couldn't get in touch with anybody. Their commo was out. In fact, IIRC, once Luttrell's team made the decision to let the farmers go, then they knew the mission was blown and they called for evac. Except Murphy came along and they didn't get through. Again, IIRC, the radio operator tried his best to get through even in the middle of heavy battle.

[rino451]

No, there was an American team, too.

They were able to just barely get helicopters in for extraction. Just barely.

Unlike Luttrell's incident, the team in Desert Storm had constant contact with air support- F-16s for CAS and the helicopters to get them out. Luttrell's team ran into serious problems because they did not have working commo.

I can vouch for this. IIRC, they were in a natural "trench" when a child stumbled on them and went running. There were interviews with an F-16 pilot and one of the guy's on the ground talking about how the pilot had to line up say n to s and on command roll inverted and look for a signal mirror to figure out where everyone was because everything was so non descript.

On topic, they had the same issue that the SAS and Luttrell did - whether or not to grab the child. I did not get the impression that they were went so far as to worry about getting crucified by the media and civilian courts back then. That alone says something about war fighting, ROE, and American intestinal fortitude.

[youngda9]

I am of the camp that they should have killed the 3 goat hurders. If you read the book, there is a section in there about how it is against the rules to kill a guy walking his camel that is loaded with explosives. Many of our troops die from such policies, it makes their job MUCH more difficult also.

War is HELL. There is a lot of collateral damage in war. We used to bomb cities for pete sake to damage the moral of the enemy(Germany, WWII). Anyone remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima...MANY civilians died to end the war, millions of them died in WWII just look up the numbers it is amazing. 22+ million military deaths and 34+ million civilian deaths in WWII alone.

We are way too soft now. Not killing these three goat herders got many of our SEALs killed, and many rescuers that were killed when the rescue helecopter was shot down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[PandaBearBG]

Well ROE always looks good on paper and in the office, in the field it's just a pain and a danger. I don't believe they had fire support because they were in a no-no zone, a politicaly sensitive border zone of a less than friendly country, where official US involvement could be seen as less than diplomatic. So leave it to the real men to do the work even though the media and political clout still worm their way in and try to tie the SEALS hands and make things more difficult.

I think Luttrell said in one of his speeches for politicians and leaders to talk and and do everything in their power to keep him from going over there, but when that fails, they should turn around shut their eyes because he's gonna wreck house over there.

[HK G3]

See that's the problem right there. If the enemy wants to shoot at our finest, they should let the skies open and have hell rain down upon those that wish to kill people like Luttrell and everyone else that defends freedom, diplomacy be damned.

They should respect the "they were trying to kill us, so we responded in kind - maybe you guys should purge these people from your lands" response.

[StuntHeavy]

I'm not a book reader. That is to say, I have not read a single book since I have left highschool.

I recently decided to pick this one up. Read it cover to cover in two days. What a story. This man, and his team are prime examples of what the word "Hero" stands for.

[Arctic Scout]

I realize that this will be unpopular, but I have to dissent. I'm a squad leader in the Army, so I lead soldiers for a living. In my opinion, the author is a moron. He allowed local nationals to go, and he *didn't* expect them to give away his position? That's so naive as to not even merit a derisive remark. Not to Monday Morning Quarterback, but I believe he is to blame for the resulting deaths of his friends.

I found the book poorly written, self-aggrandizing and not worth the money.

Your mileage may vary.

[Shung]

the "moron" wasn't in command, and they voted on the matter.. but I thought you read that book..

[Yo Mama]

I realize that this will be unpopular, but I have to dissent. I'm a squad leader in the Army, so I lead soldiers for a living. In my opinion, the author is a moron. He allowed local nationals to go, and he *didn't* expect them to give away his position?

They knew it would give their position away. When they let them go, they relocated to another waypoint. The Team's only other choice was to keep them detained, but they would have had a search party from the village pretty soon when they didn't come back home.

IMO you being in the Army as a squad leader and calling this author a "moron" is not becoming of someone in your caliber.

[earlthegoat2]

It was a similar incident Andy McNab encountered in the book Bravo Two Zero. I believe both McNab and Lutrell's team leader made the right decisions at the time from a life and/or moral standpoint given the open options of morals during war. Nothing can be done when everything goes to hell. As is said in the movie Black Hawk Down, "You cant control who gets hit or who falls out of a chopper or why. It aint up to you. Its just war."

These are men who are trained to work around and with the Fog of War. No amount of hindsight 20/20 will ever condemn the men of that day and anyone who tries will only be doing it for political reasons or to further their own agenda. It is war. War is not a time for thinking things through and making rational decisions. You do what you have to do at the time and hope your trianing keeps you as close to the straight and narrow as you can go. Trials against our soldiers in war are for the most part a sham and the exceptions to this do not take into account the madness that overcomes anyone in the heat of battle and the frustration of fighting an enemy that can hide in plain sight and the politics made by men who are not in battle of not being able to anything about it.

In battle, you will understand how the wrong decision is made most of the time when looking back on it. Again hopefully training can be fallen back upon to guide a sane man in an incomprehensively insane situation.

[rbernie]

I am of the camp that they should have killed the 3 goat hurders. If you read the book, there is a section in there about how it is against the rules to kill a guy walking his camel that is loaded with explosives. Many of our troops die from such policies, it makes their job MUCH more difficult also.
The people in the moment, in the situation, clearly did not come to the same conclusion as you. More to the point, your Monday-morning-quarterbacking from the comfort of your keyboard is simply another manifestation of the very issue that you claim to be decrying.

They elected to not kill the noncombatants, and that was their decision alone. You do not get to second-guess it nor to tell them that they were incorrect.

You were not there, and they were.

He allowed local nationals to go, and he *didn't* expect them to give away his position? That's so naive as to not even merit a derisive remark.Since executing non-combatants isn't an option, the only other options were to detain them in some fashion or release them and relocate. Detaining the nationals has its own set of operational and moral issues, but I'm sure that you can figure that out.

Nevertheless - the thread was tenuously topical here at the beginning, and I suspect it's run its course.