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

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>

The situation faced by the 4 man team and the actions they took should never be up for debate. &nbsp;Their understanding of the situational awareness and their personal character helped in their decision to release the civilians. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;</div>

<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.&nbsp;<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.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Full disclosure: I have not seen Lone Survivor, so I am not commenting about their specific circumstances. &nbsp;</div>

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,&nbsp;let's say&nbsp;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?

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.

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

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.

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....

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! 

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