Lone Survivor

[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.