Lone Survivor realistic or not? What was your favorite part?

SFC Ricardo Ruiz — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:56:26 -0500

<h1 style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 10px; font-size: 32px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.2; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; position: relative;">'Lone Survivor' is realistic about this: We owe these heroes a debt</h1>

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2014 8:35 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:35:42 -0500

I have seen some great reviews and look forward to seeing it myself this week. I remembering reading the story of Mike Murphy and have always loved Mark Walberg as an actor. I heard he does an excellent performance in this film. Very passionate actor who truly cares for the military.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 9:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:35:32 -0500

I believe that although you have to add a little bit of "Hollwood" into military movies, they did an amazing job at showing what people in combat will go through for the person to their left and right. I don't want to add my favorite part because i dont want to spoil it for those who havent seent it, LOL

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jan 16 at 2014 2:01 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0500

You have to go back to the source of the movie and verify that for accuracy. I have yet to see the movie, but the book itself has received some criticism for it's accuracy compared to what actually happened during Operation Red Wings. There are many other books that don't take the same personal account of the events that give a truer view of what actually happened like Victory Point by Ed Darack, and Operation Red Wings by Peter Nealen. So in any good story there is a bit of playing with the truth not that it takes away any from the actual sacrifice and valor of the men involved, but many times the truth is more impressive than any changes made to "improve" the story for film. I plan on watching the film, but I also am going in knowing that a lot of the events were changed from the book, created for the movie, or differ from the official accounts of the events.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 10:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:50:20 -0500

I read the book, which was fantastic, and saw the movie last weekend. While the movie isn't as great as the book, it stands by itself as an honor to the Service-members who lost their lives that day. I have to agree with the knife scene but the best scenes were when they went down the mountain. Won't say anything else for those who haven't seen it. I saw part of a "shooting-of" clip on HBO the other day on how they did the filming to include the mountain scenes.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 3:03 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:03:32 -0500

I would say it's pretty accurate. As a communicator, I really focused on the terminology and how they were passing traffic. The comm problems is a reality. One thing that bugged me was the continuous calling of the Marine Staff Sergeant, a Sergeant, that is not militarily incorrect. For the most part, I think they did a damn good job representing the men of Operation Red Wings.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Mar 29 at 2014 7:09 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:09:02 -0400

<div>Killing an innocent civilian is never going to be the right answer in that situation. What is the right answer will depend on the subtleties of the situation, and every situation is going to be a little different. Best situation is not to get compromised in the first place, and if you have a soft compromised, you should execute the planned response to it, which will also vary depending on the importance of the mission. <br></div><div><br></div><div>If you are certain a civilian is going to compromise your security on purpose by colluding with the enemy, he is no longer an innocent bystander. Problem is that you can't possibly be certain of their intent, unless they actually tell you. Another problem is that if your position is compromised, you most likely will never know what actually compromised it. It's easy to assume it was a goat herder that came around earlier, but unlikely you would ever know if that actually led to anything.</div><div><br></div><div>The "discovered by goat herder" is a commonly studied military scenario and I would assume any recon team would have some plan for a variation of a soft compromise. It happened to 5th GRP and the SAS for example in the first Gulf War. </div><div><br></div><div>Full disclosure: I have not seen Lone Survivor, so I am not commenting about their specific circumstances.  </div>

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 4:13 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:13:07 -0400

Absolutely not civilian or not mission comes first and I will do what I have to in order to succeed in the mission and bring myself and my brothers home safely at the very least I would properly detain him so he cannot get back to his forces and give away our element of surprise

Response by SSG James Seets made Mar 30 at 2014 4:51 PM

SSG James Seets — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:51:56 -0400

There is no easy answer to this scenario, you have to take everything into account when this happens. If he is let go what could happen? What will happen? If I kill him, could I live with it, not knowing his true intent if let go? How will these choices effect the overall mission? It is easy to say yes kill him but it's never easy to actually do it. If you tie him up, you could be sentencing him to his own death anyway. As MAJ Weiss said, you have to plan for a soft compromise. This plan will most times still involve completing your mission.
There is no right answer here but I can say that to me, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 7:43 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:43:04 -0400

Cadet CPT L.

Why not sedate with drugs that will render unconsciousness for a reliable period of time and disrupt consolidation of short term memory into long term memory so that there is nothing to report in the mind of the observer on his / her emergence from the anesthetic effects?

Perhaps a subcutaneous implant delivering a shaped dose of some commonly used battlefield anesthetics like a high dose cocktail of Ketamine and Versed over a period of hours to days?

One might add additional clinically safe memory consolidation disruptors (Pharmacological Inhibitors of Protein Synthesis / HDAC / GABA / NMDA Systems) to enhance desired effect.

Such a medical device may also be potentially helpful in ameliorating PTSD effects by protecting our own troops from remembering and reexperiencing the disruptive effects of witnessing some of the most severe battlefield or first responder psychological trauma.

This sounds like a project DARPA could contract out to rapidly develop and evaluate as a nonlethal weapon / medical device for field use. Rohypnol may be a usedul field expedient.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

Disclosure: I have not seen Lone Survivor, but I have heard positive reviews of the film.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 31 at 2014 8:02 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:02:18 -0400

<p>Personally, I think they made the wrong call... How many more people died as a result of that decision that wouldn't have otherwise? </p><p> </p><p>I know it's a popular philosophical discussion, "if you could ensure happiness, safety, and prosperity for all of humanity at the expense of one life, is it justified?". Personally, my answer has always been "heck yeah" but I supose I'm a bit less "hippie-tastic" than most...</p>

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 31 at 2014 10:36 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:36:45 -0400

Tough choice to have to make, however as an NCO in charge of a platoon during OIF, I would have erred on the side of my mission and the safety of my Soldiers and NOTHING would compromise either of those, sorry for the goat herder but at the least they would have been bound and gagged until the mission was completed. Mission and Safety to me trumps even the RoE in certain situations like that, but that is my opinion.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 31 at 2014 10:57 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:57:37 -0400

The situation faced by the 4 man team and the actions they took should never be up for debate.  Their understanding of the situational awareness and their personal character helped in their decision to release the civilians.  Sure, they knew what the result of that decision would be but at the same time they knew what the results would be if they removed the threat.  It was truly one of those "between a rock and a hard place" situation.<div><br></div><div>As far as what I would do, I have no idea.  I know what I did during my deployments and even now I cannot tell you how I would react if placed back in that same situation I faced.  Granted, I was never on a 4 man team, miles away from any support, and outnumbered that bad, but again, the situation and our character drive us to make the calls we make and do the things we do.  </div>

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Mar 31 at 2014 12:48 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:48:37 -0400

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.<br>Never question the decision of the man on the ground.<br>If an innocent colludes with the enemy, they are not innocent.<br><br>This is complicated by the fact that ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan can not be reconciled with the Geneva Convention because the "enemy" does not wear a uniform.<br>There may actually be an argument that the mission itself was not justified under the ROE. For that matter, there is an argument that current operations are illegal, but that brings me back to "Never question the call of the man on the ground." Arm chair Quarterbacks and backseat drivers really got no clue.<br>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 1:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:09:32 -0400

Unfortunately, like CW2 Evans succinctly stated, too many people are armchair quarterbacking the team's decision. Has anyone read Luttrell's book that was the basis for the movie? The hard part is none of us know what is the right call unless we were there. Due to my personal values and beliefs and placed in their situation, I would have done the same thing. There were too many unknowns about the situation. In hindsight, it's easy for ANYONE to say "Kill them" but that's a deceptive narrative. I'd like to partially amend the question: As in the movie, let's say a small group of goatherders (say 3 personnel) discovered your team. You KNOW one of them would betray your position and the other two were truly innocent but you did not know which ones exactly, what would you do? Does the fact that you actually KNOW one of them is going to talk override the fact that two are fully innocent?

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 31 at 2014 1:23 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:23:13 -0400

I know when we were in Afghanistan and conducting OP/Ambush missions the SOP for a soft compromise was to call for exfil and exit the area. I was on a mission in which we were "discovered by goat herder" but when we spoke to him he indicated he wanted to show us a weapons cache. We called higher up, assessed the situation, and took the risk. It turned out that it paid off because he led us to the rocket-launch site we had been trying to find for several weeks. So based on the book/movie "Lone Survivor" and my personal experience I say if you are compromised you exfil and leave the area. Often times a secondary team is in the area or you can reinsert later.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 1:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:29:57 -0400

I would have taken those civilians up to the ridge with me, easier saying it now though

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 1:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:52:49 -0400

It is a hard call to make. It comes down to what you can trust on the ground and how much situational awareness you have.

In some cases, you may be able to move your position. In some cases, you may have to prepare to slug it out. In some cases, you may have to call for an hasty extraction. In some cases, you may have to attempt to capture or otherwise incapacitate the civilian based on their actions (if they become a combatant through direct or indirect action). You can Armchair Quarterback the situation all you want. Hindsight is always 20/20. What it comes down to is the troops on the ground making a decision and doing their best to accomplish what they must in order to complete the mission or avoid anything which steps outside of acceptable parameters.

SFOD-A 525 experienced a very similar situation in Desert Storm.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 7:30 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:30:31 -0400

It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 5:49 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 05:49:49 -0400

I would detain the goat herder and take him with me to close to the extraction point, and then let him go when I knew the aircraft was close to my position.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Apr 2 at 2014 10:54 AM

SGT Craig Northacker — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:54:46 -0400

The Major covered the subject quite well. The issues for those executing the missions are compounded by decision makers far above their pay grade. We, and you, all make the best decision on the ground for us (you) at the time. Period. Second-guessing is a waste of time unless it is for a constructive review. We must deal with the consequences of our actions, and the sooner we can make as much peace with ourselves the better we are - for us and our families. The Nurnburg Trials post WW-II assigned the blame to those responsible at the top -as lower ranks are only implementing the orders in generally very tough conditions. This is not just for the military - it is also for those influenced to make certain decisions for their own reasons.

There is doing your job, there is returning home, and sometimes there are PTSD, TBI and moral injury issues we have to deal with or be consumed by them. I served during and after Viet Nam, and my anger also came from silliness in service by messed-up individuals in a position to mess up other people-and not be held accountable. It can be combat or non-combat. As long as it is, then it needs to be dealt with.

I have spent my life in figuring things out to the detriment of my first family. My new family has supported me through thick and thin regarding my injuries and chemical exposures that the Army forgot to tell me about at the time. I now run a non-profit group helping others come back to life again - without judgment. Please feel free to ask - we work quietly in confidence with those we help.

Good luck!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 5 at 2014 5:57 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:57:08 -0400

I wish I could remember how it turned out but I am aware that this did happen and I do remember an interview with the members of the team that it happened to, Discovered by a Child with some Nomadic Group. It didn't end well if I remember right. One of the Nightmares of being special forces and working behind the lines.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 11:11 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 23:11:21 -0400

It's definitely a heat-of-the-moment situation/response, but what I feel is very necessary is they HAD to have a Risk Assessment plan in place.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 29 at 2014 1:11 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:11:25 -0400

I thought it was a pretty good movie and if half the stuff in the movie actually happened to them, like those falls down the rock faces and multiple GSWs than all I can say is Holy Sh!t these guys were some mean hombres. The bottom line is they had an objective and being that they couldn't complete that objective they had to attempt to get out of there one way or another.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2014 1:15 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:15:44 -0400

Given up what position? Sorry, I'm trying to understand. Are you talking about whether they should have killed the locals that eventually alerted the bad guys? Or are you talking about a "position" as in a hole/location?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 29 at 2014 1:25 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:25:32 -0400

I think that it portrayed the real dilema that SOF have to deal with when they are out operating. There was a similar situation in Desert Storm when an SF ODA under command of CW4 "Bulldog" Balwanz that was doing deep surveillance on a major Iraqi road was compromised by a little kid herding sheep (kid literally walked up to their hide). Their choices were to kill the kid or let the kid go and abort the mission. They chose to abort because their missions wasn't "to kill kids". Unfortunately, the kid told his dad, dad called the Iraqi Army and all hell broke loose. They were only saved by massive air support from a flight of USAF F-16s who were hunting in a nearby kill box. It was the same moral dilema and the same choice made (with similar consequences). So yeah, I think it's VERY accurate in that account....

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 29 at 2014 4:16 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:16:47 -0400

You do realize it's based on real events, right? The team chose not to kill civilians to preserve their secrecy and paid a terrible price for it. So yes, I think it portrayed "True Seal Fashion," but I wasn't a SEAL, so I'd leave that to one of them to declare with any sort of definitiveness.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2014 9:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:06:09 -0400

SrA, have you even read the book? Have you ever met Marcus Luttrell or any other SEAL for that matter? Have you ever worked with Spec Ops personnel (SEALS, SF, Ranger, etc)? There are many on here, including me, who have on all three questions although I personally have not met Marcus.

With that said, if you had read the book then you would know what was portrayed in the movie is very accurate although there is some "Hollywood" to it. Yes, they could have survived multiple massive falls. In fact, they DID.

As far as "giving up" their position, none of us were there except those four. We don't know what they went through each step of the way leading up to Mike, Danny and Matt's deaths. Some of their "giving up" position was based on not only removing themselves from a catastrophic kill zone but also to find better cover and engagement areas. The reasons above are why I down-voted you.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 2 at 2014 9:16 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:16:27 -0400

SrA Jeff Campbell - I down voted your discussion because the movie was based off of true events and written statements by those that were there. The team really didn't give up their position at all. They were concealed and the TCNs entered their AO and then the team took action. They had to make a tough decision and live with it. They were surround by thousands of enemy forces and miles away from support.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2014 9:33 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:33:52 -0400

SrA Jeff Campbell, I'm tempted to down-vote that comment, but I'll resist the urge. You do realize that statistically approximately 1 out of 4 SEALs is shot at or gives ultimate sacrifice for cause? The ratio is about the same across the other branch special forces.

What happened on that dreadful June 28, 2005 was a minuscule detail as to scores of spec ops missions gone wrong for whatever reason.

You do realize that you can train and prepare only for so much?? How dare you label them as true or not true? 4 highly-skilled spec ops warriors also miscalculate and SHTF for them unfortunately. Come on now, THINK, PLEASE!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2014 10:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 22:35:49 -0400

Really??? One typing comment then you copy and paste it four times to other responses. How original!!!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 12 at 2015 10:58 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 22:58:45 -0400

I just saw the movie today after it remained on my shelf for 6 months. I knew it would rip my guts out and it did. I stick to my belief that there are 3 types of people in the world :Sheep, Wolves, and Shepherds. In a perfect world, we could live together as sheep and achieve what God intended for us to be. But, we live in a world that continues to be dominated by wolves. Cue the shephards.....militarty, police, firefighters, all first responders, etc. These special operators aren't even shepherds. They are the guard dogs that let the shepherds rest up to continue their jobs protecting the flock. If you can justify your actions to keep your fellow military family alive, then carry on. If we fear our own government to burn us when we are the ones having to make the grey area choices, everyone will pay the price. Perhaps they should quit sending us to fight the wolves with one hand tied behind our backs.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 11:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 23:16:33 -0400

I say realistic as the man who survived assisted in the production of the movie.

I enjoyed the entire movie. It is amazing the perseverance of our Soldiers in action.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2016 6:17 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:17:48 -0400

The title to this post is such Bullshit, at least what came on my FB feed. "Military members say that the movie lone survivor wasn't realistic" click bait. None of us can say weather their desicion was right or wrong. We were not there, we were not in that situation. God bless the families of the guys that were in Operation Red Wings. May our brothers Rest In Peace.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Oct 11 at 2016 7:39 PM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:39:20 -0400

Why not gag them and zip tie them to a tree? Surely someone would have come looking for them. Could have dosed them with Morphine too, put them out to give you time and give you an out.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 15 at 2017 12:30 AM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:30:45 -0500

this is one of the time I have to say... I go to the Movies to Be entertained ... so i watch the Movie and as that one Part leads into another... the Movie was good and not Bad for the Holly Weird Folks...

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Feb 15 at 2017 11:56 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:56:12 -0500

I thought the still being able to move after tumbling down and landing on his back on the big rocks was pretty unbelievable.

Response by Sgt Eugene Keyser made Feb 15 at 2017 6:15 PM

Sgt Eugene Keyser — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:15:16 -0500

Favorite part....well....the the fact that some REAL Team members were the extras, including Luttrell. To question whether or not it was realistic is absurd, at least 90% of what was in the movie came directly from the book and declassified documents pertaining to Operation Red Wing. Of course there is going to be discrepancies from actual accounts to what is on screen, even though the Navy gave a green light to the project as well as the book...but with that said, no Hollywood director, producer, writer, or any of the myriad personnel involved in making movies can get it exactly correct or know what it was like unless they themselves have been through it...and most of Hollywood has not. For quite sometime now Saving Private Ryan was the go to movie for battlefield realism according to many, including WWII Veterans...Pearl Harbor, Fury, Unbroken to name just a few have also garnered praise as to their realism from Vets who served in similar positions as those films portrayed...
The point is...unless you yourself have been in that same exact situation, you will never know or understand fully what was happening in the moment. And in this Marine Vets opinion...to say anything against the way the film was done or against the book it is based off of, is basically calling those men who died and those who survived liars and frauds. I have personally known SEAL Team members from my time in and they are by no means frauds. They are as bat shit crazy as their reputation, and there is no other person I would want to attack the missions they go on, that most never hear about, than the men who take up the mantle of becoming a SEAL. I have friends who were Force Recon, and have much respect for the job they do, but the SEALs are given a certain set of guidelines that even Force Recon cannot follow due to our mandates in the Marines.

Response by SGT Sean Moore made Feb 15 at 2017 7:23 PM

SGT Sean Moore — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:23:19 -0500

Movie was entertaining, but I suggest reading the biographical book... you'll get a much clearer picture & insight to the actual event without the Hollywood gloss over. Same with Blackhawk Down.

Response by CPL Greg Fiory made Feb 16 at 2017 5:51 AM

CPL Greg Fiory — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:51:22 -0500

Rank is one thing when your in uniform. But when your out of the milatary not many people care what your rank was. We are all brothers and sisters. Most vets will have your 6.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2017 11:51 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:51:14 -0500

Watch the behind the scenes with Walberg and his family. You would be amazed at how serious Wahlberg was in playing that part. Makes all of this a lot more valid, and it's not like they did not assess the situation from all aspects to make the right call.

Response by SSG Levi Harris made Feb 16 at 2017 4:46 PM

SSG Levi Harris — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:46:20 -0500

Wasn't Marcus Luttrell on site during filming? I mean he was in the film... I'd say it is pretty accurate with a little Hollywood pizzazz.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2017 1:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:10:35 -0500

It's a very easy situation, and although very unfortunate, it was handled incorrectly.
There was no need to kill the people who stumbled upon the team, compromising the mission. You simply zip tie them and attempt to make Comms. If you are unable to make comms, you continue moving to higher ground maintaining full control of the detainees.
When Comms are established, you coordinate for an exfil location and maintain custody of the detainees. Once the exfil platform has arrived, and every team member is aboard and ready to exfil, you cut the detainees loose, and take off RTB.

If you are compromised the mission is over. Comms with higher is a must, and an extraction point must be designated. Maintain control of detainees until clean and clear.

Response by SGT Shane Gregory made Feb 19 at 2017 10:28 AM

SGT Shane Gregory — Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:28:31 -0500

Well the hurt locker won best picture and it was about the most unrealistic military movie ever....

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Feb 20 at 2017 6:23 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 06:23:16 -0500

That was one bad ass kid. I liked the rescue.

Response by SPC Frank Novosel made Feb 21 at 2017 8:18 PM

SPC Frank Novosel — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:18:48 -0500

So instead of letting them go or shooting them just take them with you. The phone on them was enough reason to detain them

Response by CPT Earl George made Feb 28 at 2017 6:54 AM

CPT Earl George — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:54:53 -0500

I found it hard to believe that the higher headquarters did not have an aircraft standing by to either pick them up or fly over the area to reestablish commo with the team after they failed to make their routine report ins.

Response by MAJ Norm Michaels made Feb 28 at 2017 11:23 AM

MAJ Norm Michaels — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:23:19 -0500

It was a good idea at the time. That used to be my favorite phrase. Ten minutes later, my good idea might change, but at the time that I had to make a decision, it was a good idea.

Response by SSG David Poole made Mar 2 at 2017 3:51 PM

SSG David Poole — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:51:01 -0500

With regards to Hollywood and their CGI and filming of combat is highly fake and hugely exaggerated for the movie goers entertainment. That being said, Peter Burg and cast and crew did an amazing job. In my opinion it's the only Hollywood movie that has come close to what a firefight is like. The sounds of the weapons and whizzes of bullets are excellent. The two main aspects that really impressed me was their use of explosions and how their grenades and RPG'S looked and acted close to reality and they don't make a giant fireball when exploding and don't completely level a 50 meter area and the use of the casts fire and maneuver tactics, weapons and gear handling, communication and uniform and equipment selection and setup were some of the best ever done in a Hollywood film. Overall I thought the movie was an outstanding portrayal of those men, their tremendous fighting spirit and brotherhood. And was best portrayal of combat since saving private ryan.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Mar 2 at 2017 11:54 PM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:54:36 -0500

There was no favorite part. The only good news was Marcus Luttrell make it home alive to let us know what happened on this mission. There was also a significant lost of life on the rescue team. This added to the bad news. I remove my white hat in tribute to those who risk their life every day so we have the luxury of making pancakes for breakfast. Hooyah, Hooah, Oorah, or what ever floats your boat.

Response by MSG Frederick Otero made Mar 9 at 2017 4:51 PM

MSG Frederick Otero — Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:51:17 -0500

My question relates to what lessons learned from that mission, are drugs to disable even an option these days? Just asking folks.

Response by SSG Chris Jones made Apr 11 at 2017 7:15 PM

SSG Chris Jones — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:15:05 -0400

i had quite a few problems with the movie. i have been told that i should read the book that the movie came from, it was much more accurate to accounts. probs that i had with the film, i couldnt believe that the team would be left on the mountain without a constant and reliable retrans to maintain coms, and that the sig operator wouldnt have more kit and ability to improvise to maintain coms at all times... their support appeared to be slow and awkward when it came to making to to maintain contact and support with the team as well, like they were set up to fail the mission, which is hard to believe that seals or any s/f would allow that to happen.. as to what to do with the prisoners, they would have kept them prisoner until they could get confirmation that extraction was confirmed and on the way, all that arguement was a bunch of unnecessary movie drama, imo, and they wouldnt have been b/sing the way they were about horses and stuff if they knew that they had problems with coms and extraction. misson success first, all other things second.. next, their fight with the taliban looked awkward and weak and rookie to me, also probably staged that way for movie drama. 2 members had grenade launchers and failed to use them. they all had helmets but failed to use them and fell off the mountain side without helmets, looked rookie or again movie staged to me.. just saying..