• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

Donald Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

People are complicated. Love is not.

How stupid are these people?

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Republicans in disarray!

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / Anyone Who Runs Is A VC

Anyone Who Runs Is A VC

by John Cole|  August 31, 200712:40 pm| 113 Comments

This post is in: Military, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

The Instapundit, with another throwaway link (Really, he isn’t endorsing it. He just wants you all to read it and think about it):

THE SWING OF THE PENDULUM: At Captain’s Journal, a look at rules of engagement.

The Captain (who is not military, we are told) passes along stories from WWII in which the ROE were, shall we say, different:

Roads melted, and some people were seen stuck in the melted asphalt, having put their hands out to try to get out, only to get their hands stuck as well. Many were seen on fire, eventually melting in their own fat. Eight square miles of Hamburg were completely burned out that night, killing 45,000 Germans.

Here Richard Rhodes is setting up the discussion at the end of the book in which the reader engages in the ethical choice to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, or commit 200,000 men to a land invasion of Japan, possibly losing many or even a majority of them. This book is a technical, sobering and difficult read, but highly recommended. It is meant only for the serious thinker.

Serious thinkers like, say, the Captain. We are then treated to the much circulated Washington Times editorial (the paper of record for serious thinkers) from earlier this year:

Now that Marcus Luttrell’s book “Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10″ is a national bestseller, maybe Americans are ready to start discussing the core issue his story brings to light: the inverted morality, even insanity, of the American military’s rules of engagement (ROE).

On a stark mountaintop in Afghanistan in 2005, Leading Petty Officer Luttrell and three Navy SEAL teammates found themselves having just such a discussion. Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150-200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans’ position.

This presented the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do? If they let the Afghans go, they would probably alert the Taliban to the their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. “Little Big Horn in turbans,” as Marcus Luttrell would describe it. If the Americans didn’t let the goatherds go — if they killed them, there being no way to hold them — the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainscape far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the rules of engagement. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.

It is agonizing to read their tense debate as Mr. Luttrell recounts it, the “lone survivor” of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of “the strictly correct military decision” — namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane. They’re immoral.

The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell’s three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers — eight additional SEALS and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban rocket-propelled grenade.

“Look at me right now in my story,” Mr. Luttrell writes. “Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it’s worth: If you don’t want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place.”

You see, the obvious conclusion is the pendulum has swung too far because of the pussy liberals at home. Clearly we need some new Rules of Engagement, ones that presumably include the right to execute, at will, goatherders.

Hearts and minds, deep thinkers. Hearts and minds.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « This Is Odd
Next Post: And Now For Something Completely Different »

Reader Interactions

113Comments

  1. 1.

    Pb

    August 31, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    This guy is behind the curve, tons of people were saying this in 2002:

    I have only one piece of advice for what it’s worth: If you don’t want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place.

    It’s a deal. Now can we get out of Iraq?

  2. 2.

    salvage

    August 31, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    I wonder if aborting the mission was an option? Walk the herders to the extraction point, hold them until the SEAL’s ride comes and then try again for the Kingpin another day?

    It’s not like being spotted is an unlikely scenario for any incursion into enemy territory, don’t they have contingencies?

  3. 3.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Pb, this wasn’t Iraq, but Afghanistan.

    That said, I do not know what situation they were in, but if they knew their cover was blown, did they attempt to abort the mission? Your secrecy is blown, you get out. If they could have, that is.

    I am terribly sorry for those guys, though. War fucking sucks.

    SEALS “afraid” of liberals back home?

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    August 31, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    Man, after that compelling read, I can’t think of a single good reason not to nuke Tehran.

    Here’s a thought. Perhaps if we hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003, we would have been able to field a more complete and capable task force to deal with Taliban warlords (you know, the ones Cheney and Bush insisted had been taken care of back in ’04) in 2005. I can’t help but think that the $3 billion a week and 100 lives a month we spend in Iraq could easily help us win Afghanistan if we weren’t pissing it away somewhere else. Maybe Mr. Luttrell wouldn’t have been in that situation at all if he’d had war-planning and support from the Pentagon like he was supposed to.

    But maybe I’m just thinking this because I’m too stinking liberal.

    See, this game cuts both ways.

  5. 5.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    salvage, we cross posted, but your idea is even more correct. Why not hold the goatherders?

  6. 6.

    salvage

    August 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Cuz teh only thing scarier to a SEAL than liberals are goat herders.

  7. 7.

    John Cole

    August 31, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    There is also the possibility the Seals thought they were going to be greeted with flowers and candy, so maybe that is why they did not shoot.

  8. 8.

    Pb

    August 31, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    capelza,

    His advice wasn’t that specific, but I think it’s the sort of advice that the Bush administration should have listened to, quite some time ago, although perhaps not in the way that he intended it.

    SEALS “afraid” of liberals back home?

    Somehow, I doubt it. Yeah, it’s those evil liberals who were investigating anything and everything war-related in 2005, right? You know, when they controlled the… ah, the office… you know, the department of… ah, fuck it.

  9. 9.

    Nikki

    August 31, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Ah, I see. Conservatives controlled the Congress and the White House, a substantial portion of the media was pro Iraq and Afghanistan war, but it’s the possibility of MY reaction that forced those SEALs let those goatherders go and subsequently got wiped out by the Taliban.

    Yeah, it’s the liberals’ fault.

  10. 10.

    rafael

    August 31, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Ehh, they couldnt tie them up??? It doesnt seem like it was a big group and I’m sure the SEALS know how to make good knots.

  11. 11.

    jenniebee

    August 31, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Awww… if only they’d had those little plastic twist-tie handcuffs that everybody in Iraq seems to have been issued, they’d have been able to obey the RoE without taking that risk. But on the other hand, if that had happened, they’d have been denied such a dramatic story, in which we discover that these Great Big Strapping American Heroes are powerless – powerless, I tell you! – before the might of the Limp-wristed Liberals! :-( And those Liberals have eyes everywhere, too – they can even see the gory details of what happens in those parts of the world where only goatherds and 4-man SEAL teams dare tread. Sure it’s a remote hilltop and there are Taliban just everywhere, but you never know – Christiane Amanpour might be hidden anywhere, just waiting to catch you up. Worse yet, one of those guys you think is your buddy, he might be… BEAUCHAMP!!!

    Give me a break. If the RoE were written to disallow killing civilians who might compromise a spec. forces mission in the course of carrying out that mission, the fault lies with the dumbfuck who wrote those RoE’s, not with the ACLU. What a piece of self-exonerating propagandist garbage.

  12. 12.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    God I hate to rag on soldiers, but this really bothers me… were those guys so unimaginative that it never occurred to them that they did have to option to hold the goatherders, or as was suggested above, tie them up till the mission was over?

    It was either kill them or be killed, no alternate way. Crazy.

  13. 13.

    TEAK111

    August 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    That story sounds awfully fishy to me in the smae way the Tilman story is/was fishy. Especially that line that the SEALs are thinking, “damned liberals back home.” And do the libs make the ROE?

    But the last thought is important. If you make WAR there is hell to pay fom everyone involved, including those SEALs. Since WWII, we have been trying not to kill civs, but I’m not sure that works.

  14. 14.

    Pb

    August 31, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    capelza,

    If the Americans didn’t let the goatherds go — if they killed them, there being no way to hold them

    Apparently, this story actually is premised on the idea that four Navy SEALs had no means at their disposal whatsoever to hold three unarmed Afghan goatherds (one a teenager) without killing them–we are supposed to believe that they apparently had no way to tie them up, knock them out, bring them somewhere else, etc., etc. Don’t just fear the liberals and the lawyers, fear the unstoppable Afghan goatherds!

  15. 15.

    yet another jeff

    August 31, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    You go to war with the population back home that you’ve got, not the population back home that you want.

    Damn, already too late with the “couldn’t they just tie the freaking goatherders up for a couple hours” idea. Black or white, kill them or let them go. Still ties in to my theory of an administration with BPD.

  16. 16.

    Ripley

    August 31, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    My military days are long behind me, but I have to question the wisdom of sending 4 troops into enemy-held territory to catch/kill someone who commands 150-200 fighters. I’m sure the SEALs are highly skilled and capable, but it’s seems rather boneheaded to send only 4 of them.

    But yeah, it must have been some treehugger on the other side of the world that screwed up the perfect plan. Bravo, Instapundit… bravo, indeed. You really socked it to me, and now I support the Total War Against Terror with all my heart.

  17. 17.

    The Other Steve

    August 31, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    The Nazi’s never had these problems in Europe.

    We should be more like them.

  18. 18.

    canuckistani

    August 31, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Maybe a plan which relied on not being detected by civilians was not a very well thought out plan. But no one has been praising the US military for their planning skills since around 1946.

  19. 19.

    r4d20

    August 31, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    four Navy SEALs had no means at their disposal whatsoever to hold three unarmed Afghan goatherds (one a teenager) without killing them

    Its not as impossible as it sounds. some missions can mean days or weeks of living off the land.

    To “Detain them” you need someone to watch them, feed them, etc. Tying them up and walk away and they will either escape or starve.

    In “Not a Good Day to Die” – about Operation Anaconda – a Delta Force operator, doing pre-battle recon, almost gets into a similar circumstance. Luckily he wasn’t actually spotted but the point is that, when the risk was real, he decided that if he was spotted he would abort the mission because he was simply not going to kill an innocent shepherd.

    Interestingly the same book portrayed the SEALS as the worst of Americans Spec Ops community (something he was criticized for – with some justification). In fact, during the mission one of the SEAL teams did shoot and kill an Afghan father and son who stumbled across their position – the team-leader addressed them in English one time and then shot them when they didn’t do what he said. He was later dishonorably discharged for that and whole bunch of other stupid-ass things he did.

  20. 20.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    I googled this. Michael Murphy, one of the other SEALS, Luttrell’s boss is (was?) up for the MoH.

    And his father has taken exception to Luttrell’s book.

    But, apparantly, they had discussed taking the goatherder’s prisoner and felt it would either slow them down or bring out people looking for them. And aborting the mission would have endangered their extraction team.

    At least this is what Luttrell told Murphy’s father.

    He also, contra to the book, told Murphy’s father, Daniel, that Murphy made the decision solely..no murder. The whole committee thing was news to Mrphy’s father who said that Luttrell dishonoured his son’s memory.

  21. 21.

    yet another jeff

    August 31, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Wonder if that force that attacked them was being led by the kingpin they were stalking?

  22. 22.

    Emily

    August 31, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    I heard a bit of an NPR interview with this guy, I think. After everything went to hell he was wounded and trying to evade pursuit. He ended up in a village or was found by some villagers who took him in and – didn’t tell the taliban. Funny old world.

  23. 23.

    r4d20

    August 31, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Just to be clear – I think the author was too hard on the SEALs.

    AFAIK, SEALS are primarily trained for underwater demolition and combat-oriented tactics – they go in a blow stuff up and/or shoot people and then leave.
    Unlike the Army Special Forces they are not generally trained to work with or alongside other people and they just dont get the same kind of training when it comes to working inside a environment containing civilians.

    Also AFAIK SEAL teams train to operate largely independently and and a lot of their “screw ups” in Op. Anaconda seemed to involve failures to communicate sufficiently with the Army and people they were working with.

  24. 24.

    Zifnab

    August 31, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    In “Not a Good Day to Die” – about Operation Anaconda – a Delta Force operator, doing pre-battle recon, almost gets into a similar circumstance. Luckily he wasn’t actually spotted but the point is that, when the risk was real, he decided that if he was spotted he would abort the mission because he was simply not going to kill an innocent shepherd.

    Hey, there’s another alternative. Let’s assume the goat-herders saw these guys from a few hundred yards off and the choice was let them go or gun them down. Why not just scrub the mission, retreat to an evac point, and call it a day? I mean, I’m sure SEALs are good shots, on the off chance they miss and a goat-herder gets away, they need a way to high-tail out.

    Instead, the SEALs watch them walk off then… what? Just hang out until the warlords have had time to comb the desert? Call their lawyers to verify that they haven’t disrupted a goat-herding habitat and pissed off Greenpeace?

    Maybe Marcus Luttrell’s team fucked up, and he doesn’t want to admit it. Or maybe he’s just trying to pimp his book deal. I hear every ex-military man gets one.

  25. 25.

    KCinDC

    August 31, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    they had discussed taking the goatherder’s prisoner and felt it would either slow them down or bring out people looking for them.

    And killing them wouldn’t have brought out people looking for them? But I suppose you just kill those people too, and then kill the people who come out looking for them, and so on.

  26. 26.

    Pb

    August 31, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    SEALS “afraid” of liberals back home?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    Christ on a crutch, I was wrong:

    “Was I afraid of these guys? No. Was I afraid of their possible buddies in the Taliban? No. Was I afraid of the liberal media back in the U.S.A.? Yes. And I suddenly flashed on the prospect of many, many years in a U.S. civilian jail alongside murderers and rapists.” — Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell

  27. 27.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Oh fur fuck’s sake….I have to call bullshit on this guy. A civilian jail first off. Or has the military outsourced Leaveworth, too?

    And as has been painfully pointed out here already, who would have known up on that isolated mountaintop that they had killed 4 goatherders?

    There is something stinky about this. And I feel dirty for even thinking it.

  28. 28.

    sparky

    August 31, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    sounds great to be a winger–i’d love to get my hands on whatever it is that generates that magical thinking logic: whatever happens, if it’s bad, it connects! to liberals! directly!

    is there a secret tunnel? a pill? otherwise, somebody ought to be marketing that kool-aid: (“thought zero”: looks like thinking, but no neurons fire!”)

    incidentally, if a single fact in the book is wrong is everyone free to discard everything in it?

  29. 29.

    Xanthippas

    August 31, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    “Look at me right now in my story,” Mr. Luttrell writes. “Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home…

    You know, I heard Luttrell on NPR not long ago and he didn’t seem all that eager to blame “liberals” for not being able to kill people who threatened his unit. I’m not going to second-guess him or anything (pansy liberal value I know, to respect his experience) but what he said here sounds very different: “Luttrell knew in his soul that he should kill them. But, he adds, ‘I have another soul, my Christian soul.'”

    So was it the ROEs that prevented him from killing the Afghans, or was it his “Christian soul”?

  30. 30.

    Xanthippas

    August 31, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Oh and by the way, I question the underlying assumption that most Americans are guilty of (liberals and conservatives) that says when you invade someone else’s country, you are entitled to kill their civilians to save your soldiers because your soldier’s lives are inherently more valuable.

  31. 31.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    sparky Says:

    incidentally, if a single fact in the book is wrong is everyone free to discard everything in it?

    Better get Confederate Yankee on it!

  32. 32.

    Andrew

    August 31, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Lookit folks, there are plenty of wingers in the military too.

    Like many wingers, they can be fairly competent in performing demanding jobs and hold completely batshit insane views on stuff.

  33. 33.

    Cyrus

    August 31, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.

    “Look at me right now in my story,” Mr. Luttrell writes. “Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers.

    That whole thing is, indeed, ridiculous. First of all, murder charges? Under what jurisdiction?
    But, fine, assume four SEALs would be released to the judicial system of Afghanistan for a crime committed as a necessary part of following their orders.
    Fuck it, I can’t do it. OK, assume they were court-martialed and are found guilty in the end. I think even that is unlikely, but what do I know, I was never in the army. If they are found guilty, this seems like the “would you torture a terrorist to find out where a bomb is hidden?” scenario. A smaller scale and slightly more fact-based version, but it’s the same problem. And the answer is the same: if something rare and unpredictable and horrible happens despite everyone’s best efforts, and the legal process lead you to some outcome that’s obviously unjust, then you don’t gut the (law/rules of engagement), you follow the law and count on the presidential pardon that would obviously await a “real American hero” like that.

    Assuming this improbable narrative is what actually happened, these SEALs should have either aborted the mission or killed the goatherders and sat through their court-martial, and waited for their pardons if necessary. Those liberals back home (while we’re at it: SEALs afraid of them?) probably never would hear about it, and if they did, a fair number would have understood that it was maybe or maybe not the wrong decision made during a very tough situation.

  34. 34.

    Lee

    August 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Back in the day while in the Marines I knew a few seals. I have a good friend that has a younger brother currently in the seals.

    I am going to have to get on the phone and see what they think of this story.

    Just a guess, but I’ll bet they are going to call bullshit on the whole thing about the goatherders.

  35. 35.

    Mike

    August 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    It’s so tragic when American soldiers lose faith in their commanders’ ability to cover up atrocities.

  36. 36.

    zmulls

    August 31, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    I have a lot of trouble second guessing anyone in that situation. It was an impossible place to be, and even sitting here it’s tough for me with 20-20 hindsight to make the call. I’d like to think I’d do the “right” thing and let them go, but if I knew for a fact it would lead to the deaths of a large number of soldiers would I still do it?

    And with only one left alone to tell thee, we have no idea if we’re getting the full story or the Fox News version. It may have gone done word for word the way the soldier reported it.

    It’s unfortunate that he is blaming everything on the so-called “liberals” back home. That’s very convenient. And wrong. The anger should really be directed at those who diverted resources away from that theatre, and messed up planning at every level.

    I disagree with the solider’s blame placement, but I’m not going to try to argue what call he should or shouldn’t have made. I wasn’t there and can’t imagine what it must have been like in that moment — and I can’t vouch for what decision I myself would have made.

  37. 37.

    Mike S

    August 31, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    The ex-SEALs I know would probably blame the “libruls” for this as well. For many of them it’s not uncommon to be brainwashed by the GOP’s “support of the troops” and the DEM’s “Hate the troops” rehtoric that flows through the land. Until they actually start dealing with people like me they just follow along.

    To illustrate it I’ll go back to our arguments we had to the run up to Iraq. The first few had a tinge of them thinking iof me as an “Amerca hater.” It was only after subsequent arguments that they knew differently. And here, 4+ years later, they know that all of my arguments against Iraq were right but won’t come right out and admit it.

    The best line of all was “you were right for the wrong reasons.” Even though every one of my arguments proved out, balsa wood planes and the like, it was my hatred of Bush that made me against the war.

  38. 38.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    August 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    There is also the possibility the Seals thought they were going to be greeted with flowers and candy, so maybe that is why they did not shoot.

    Again: Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    And shame on you for making fun of dead soldiers. Really repugnant comment.

  39. 39.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    A couple of things to consider:

    As mentioned above, SEALS don’t operate like Special Forces. SF missions tend to be long term affairs, while SEALS are primarily trained for surgical insertions, quick missions, and quick extraction. In all likelihood, it is unlikely that they would have been carrying any gear specifically for detainment, as that wasn’t the mission.

    Secondly, SEALS typically work in small teams; 4 men isn’t unbelievable.

    As they were most likely inserted by helicopter, they would most likely have had to walk to the extraction point. Taking prisoners with them, would have slowed them down and increased the risk of further detection. Not saying they should have killed them, but that was most likely not an option either.

    They probably did not wait around to be found, as suggested above. They were most likely overtaken by a larger force, possibly motorized.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_D._Cunningham

    This gives a brief story of a somewhat similiar engagment.

  40. 40.

    Mike S

    August 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:

    My real name is Baby Hewy Hewitt

  41. 41.

    John Cole

    August 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Again: Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    And shame on you for making fun of dead soldiers. Really repugnant comment.

    Not making fun of the SEALS (not soldiers, delicate Lambchop- and really, as a Republican, give the recent closeted gay sex scandals, is Lampchop really the name you want to run around with?). I was making fun of those who predicted it would be candy and flowers in Iraq.

    And even if I were making fun of them which I was not, would that be more morally repugnant than suggesting we just implement a free-fire zone in every theatre? Except, as it the case with the Instapundit and his surrogates, you don;t really say that- you talk about a pendulum?

    Take your outrage and shove it.

  42. 42.

    Zifnab

    August 31, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Cassidy, that’s great and all, but you still haven’t addressed the marine’s claim that all this never would have happened if it weren’t for those stink’n kids liberals.

  43. 43.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Another thing here…Luttrell was taken in and saved, nay, defended by a small village against Taliban forces.

    Is Luttrell positive that the 4 goatherders went and turned them in to the Taliban or could they have been from that very village? Really, I am just asking here.

    Who can say with certainty that it was the goatherders that blew the SEALS position?

    And one more thing, if they were concerned that by taking them prisoner, the goatherder’s people would come looking for them and yet if they had killed them, the same people would NOT come looking for them?

  44. 44.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    I’m not addressing that at all. I think it’s a convenient excuse. I don’t doubt that he belives it. In a (very twisted illogical) way it’s not completely innaccurate, in that, if they had executed the goatherders and it was found out, the average Conservative would be defending them and the average liberal would be calling for thier heads.

    Overall, I can’t say much about the decision at all. Killing them would have been murder. I like to think I wouldn’t have done it, but I haven’t been in that kind of situation.

    My only intent was to add some more factual, tactial knowledge to the argument.

  45. 45.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    And SEALS aren’t Marines…they’re Navy.

  46. 46.

    Gus

    August 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Wow, who knew we liberals were so scary to bad ass Navy SEALs?

  47. 47.

    Zifnab

    August 31, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    In a (very twisted illogical) way it’s not completely innaccurate, in that, if they had executed the goatherders and it was found out, the average Conservative would be defending them and the average liberal would be calling for thier heads.

    Well, ok. If you say so. I guess we’ll just run with Limbaugh-esque stereotypes and assume IF they’d killed the herders and IF magic fairies reported the incident that an Army of Average Liberals would rise up in protest while every corn-feed, red-blooded conservative would rise to the defense of the embattled Navy SEALs corps.

    I’m sure, from a FOX News perspective, you’re right on.

  48. 48.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Easy answer, if you’re intent on picking a fight.

    Hypothetically, if you had heard a story of 4 SEALS executing 3 civilians, so that they could complete their mission, and John wrote a post about it, would you not be in this comments section demanding they be tried for murder, etc.?

    My guess is, yes you would, as would the majority of commenters here.

    And I’m not saying you’re reaction would be wrong. But it would be typical. Paul would defend them. BlackFive would write volumes of pages describing how what they did was right. John would blame Bush. Malkin would be screaming about the liberals crucifying troops, etc.

  49. 49.

    r4d20

    August 31, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    For years I’ve been saying that we need a 6th “service” with the organizational mission of “Peacekeeping/Counter Insurgency” missions.

    Right now we send people, 99% of whose training is how to kill an identified enemy in pitched battle, into a mixed soldier-police role and, naturally, things go more wrong than necessary. When we DO try to address counter-insurgency/peacekeeping we end up trying to shoehorn it into an organization like the Army that would rather focus on something else and sees the whole thing as a distraction from its real mission.

    Lets form a service that is specifically designed to fill this role and let it be independent so its not constantly hamstrung by higherups who see and resent it as a distraction.

  50. 50.

    John Cole

    August 31, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    John would blame Bush.

    Hunh? I don’t blame Bush for the day to day behavior of our soldiers. Overall he is responsible for everything done under his watch, and he most certainly is to blame for the policies that lead to Abu Gharaib, but I am not a knee-jerk blame Bush guy.

  51. 51.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    but I am not a knee-jerk blame Bush guy.

    It was a joke.

    For years I’ve been saying that we need a 6th “service” with the organizational mission of “Peacekeeping/Counter Insurgency” missions.

    Right now we send people, 99% of whose training is how to kill an identified enemy in pitched battle, into a mixed soldier-police role and, naturally, things go more wrong than necessary. When we DO try to address counter-insurgency/peacekeeping we end up trying to shoehorn it into an organization like the Army that would rather focus on something else and sees the whole thing as a distraction from its real mission.

    Lets form a service that is specifically designed to fill this role and let it be independent so its not constantly hamstrung by higherups who see and resent it as a distraction.

    Something like that doesn’t require a new service. A few years ago, the Army threw around the idea of forming “Peacekeeping” units, formed mostly of MP’s, support staff, and Engineers. I don’t know where the idea went, but I imagine it got lost in the Post 9/11 turnaround.

  52. 52.

    Zifnab

    August 31, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Actually, I think you are horribly off base here. If a story came out of three goat-herders killing the wilds of Afghanistan during a SEALs infiltration mission that killed a ranking Taliban insurgent, I think the general sentiment would be “shit, sucks to be a goat-herder in Afghanistan”.

    I think TZ might have been the only guy on the boards who decried the innocent civilians killed when the US bombed Zarkawi’s hide-out. Certainly, we’ve all heard stories of US Soldiers in Iraq shooting up passing cars, fearful that they might be suicide bombers. No one here – or anywhere that I’ve read – has called for the pilot who bombed Zarkawi or those trigger-happy US troops to be court-marshalled.

    Perhaps you’re referring to the outrage over the Haditha massacre, in which a number of US servicemen killed an entire family, then tried to frame one of the victims as a shooter who precipitated the violence. I would hope even you, Cassidy, would have been shocked by US troops slaughtering women and children, then covering the whole mess up and lying to their commanding officers. That’s no way to run a military, I would imagine.

    Honestly, I don’t know who you are referring to or where you get your opinions. It’s rather sad that you’ve been so trained to pigeonhole people because of how they vote during an election cycle. Seriously, turn off Rush and take a step outside. Everything is not so Red and Blue.

  53. 53.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Also, the problem isn’t that Soldiers aren’t “trained” in peacekeeping. The biggest problem now is the dual nature of the mission. Are we fighting a war or peacekeeping? well, we’re doing both and trying to do them at the same time, and that’s where the problems come from. It takes a pretty marked mental and emotional movement to shift from warfighting to peacekeeping.

  54. 54.

    Tom Hilton

    August 31, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    If, as the wingnuts are always saying, Iraq is safer than DC (/Philadelphia/Detroit etc.); and if we need to firebomb the shit out of Iraq in order to ‘win’; then does that mean they’re also calling for us to firebomb DC/Philadelphia/Detroit (or wherever)? I kind of think it does.

  55. 55.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Actually, I think you are horribly off base here. If a story came out of three goat-herders killing the wilds of Afghanistan during a SEALs infiltration mission that killed a ranking Taliban insurgent, I think the general sentiment would be “shit, sucks to be a goat-herder in Afghanistan”.

    I think TZ might have been the only guy on the boards who decried the innocent civilians killed when the US bombed Zarkawi’s hide-out. Certainly, we’ve all heard stories of US Soldiers in Iraq shooting up passing cars, fearful that they might be suicide bombers. No one here – or anywhere that I’ve read – has called for the pilot who bombed Zarkawi or those trigger-happy US troops to be court-marshalled.

    Maybe I’m wrong. It’s just my opinion. I don’t beleive I am, but I’m always open to having my mind changed. OTOH, they’re are plenty of incidences in this comments section where the deaths of innocent civilians has been decried as war crimes, etc. I don’t think this situation would be any different.

    Perhaps you’re referring to the outrage over the Haditha massacre, in which a number of US servicemen killed an entire family, then tried to frame one of the victims as a shooter who precipitated the violence. I would hope even you, Cassidy, would have been shocked by US troops slaughtering women and children, then covering the whole mess up and lying to their commanding officers. That’s no way to run a military, I would imagine.

    You can go back and find comments form me where I’ve said as much. As with John, I understood their reaction, but in no way would I ever condone such a response.

    Honestly, I don’t know who you are referring to or where you get your opinions. It’s rather sad that you’ve been so trained to pigeonhole people because of how they vote during an election cycle. Seriously, turn off Rush and take a step outside. Everything is not so Red and Blue.

    I don’t listen to Rush. Never have. I get my opinons based on observation and interaction with people. People, generically, are not nearly as original or unique as they think they are. I liken just about every political belief system to the part in “Life of Brian” where everyone chants they are all individuals, and the one guy quips “I’m not”. And ignore it if you want, but you can tell a significant portion of the population’s beliefs based on one stated belief.

  56. 56.

    Darkwater

    August 31, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    Cassidy said

    Hypothetically, if you had heard a story of 4 SEALS executing 3 civilians…

    “Well, there’s your problem…”
    In every Law of Armed Conflict briefing I’ve heard of, summary executions are pretty illegal, and simply running across an enemy and not having the means to detain him doesn’t allow you to kill him.

    And let’s remember that we aren’t even talking about an “enemy,” we’re talking about goat herders who the author had no idea and still has no idea if they were Taliban collaborators.

  57. 57.

    Lit3Bolt

    August 31, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    See, the libruls planned that mission so the SEALs would be put in with little support, and it was librul intelligence that didn’t anticipate the possibility that the white Americans in Black Ops gear might possibly be SEEN by civilians!

    Monkeys can’t make this shit up. Beyond the torture, beyond the criminal nature of the shredding of the Constitution, beyond the fake causes for war in Iraq, and the subsequent quagmire…what gets me is the incompetence. The sheer and utter stupidity. The retarded fact that the US even gets CAUGHT doing this.

    We’re the richest nation in the world and we fight our wars on the cheap and with “Special Ops” units that are deathly afraid of the San Fransico Gay Librul Berkley Hippie Media Death Squads back home. Ok, never mind, we DESERVE to lose.

    Sack up, Spec Ops.

  58. 58.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    In every Law of Armed Conflict briefing I’ve heard of, summary executions are pretty illegal, and simply running across an enemy and not having the means to detain him doesn’t allow you to kill him.

    And let’s remember that we aren’t even talking about an “enemy,” we’re talking about goat herders who the author had no idea and still has no idea if they were Taliban collaborators.

    I don’t disagree. If they had killed those goatherders (non-combatants), it would have been an execution, aka Murder. The reasoning is immaterial.

    Which leads to my assertion that the average liberal would have been outraged and calling for court-martials, etc.; a position I tend to agree with. I’m not saying the position is wrong, only typical.

  59. 59.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    I remember hearing almost the exact same story about a special forces unit dropped into Iraq to locate SCUD launchers just before Gulf War I.

    Damn you Scott Beauchamp!

  60. 60.

    Darkwater

    August 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    I don’t disagree. If they had killed those goatherders (non-combatants), it would have been an execution, aka Murder. The reasoning is immaterial.
    Which leads to my assertion that the average liberal would have been outraged and calling for court-martials, etc.; a position I tend to agree with. I’m not saying the position is wrong, only typical.

    Perhaps my view of this is unrecoverably clouded based on where I come from, but I don’t think that the reaction to

    Hypothetically, if you had heard a story of 4 SEALS executing 3 civilians…

    breaks as neatly along liberal/conservative lines as much as it breaks between those-familiar-with-LOAC and those-who-think-of-war-including-counterinsurgency-as-a-free-for-all. Now, there are certainly liberals in the latter group but the past five years have shown that there are any number of conservatives in the latter group. Similarly, people familiar with LOAC run the gamut from special operators to JAG to human rights lawyers, with a resulting mix of liberals and conservatives. I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about a liberal/conservative split on this issue.

    Or am I reading too much into your previous comments, and that while you’ll label “the average liberal would have been outraged and calling for court-martials, etc.” a typical position for a liberal, you feel there is nothing that makes it a “typical liberal position”?

  61. 61.

    HyperIon

    August 31, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    so i’m a SEAL training for this mission.

    “Sir, what do we do if we run into some locals on the way to our mission?”

    Don’t those kind of questions come up during training?
    It’s one *i* would ask.
    And what is the OFFICIAL answer?
    And moreover what ARE the ROEs here?

    you mil types need to enlighten this civvie….

  62. 62.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    As I have not read this book, I’ve been spending much of the past couple hours trying to find out as much as I can about it and the events surrounding it.

    Garnering some info as I went from the book itself.

    Interestingly, to me, the villagers that took Luttrell in also knew all about the firefight before he showed up and was taken under their protection. Perhaps with that knowledge was the fact that the goatherders they DIDN’T kill had been part of that village or as news is wont to do in rural areas, it had come to the villagers’ attention and it was one of the reasons that they were willing to fight the Taliban to protect him,

    Also, again, the “liberals made me do it” meme…puhleeze.

  63. 63.

    Tsulagi

    August 31, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Can’t stand the prevalence of “not my fault!” since the Second Coming of Bush. Now a Navy SEAL doing it, along with a little bit of Condi “No one could ever have imagined…”

    Note to Luttrell: Your team leader made the decision not to take out the goatherders, not Michael Moore. You followed your team leader’s decision, Harry Reid didn’t. You got complaints about your ROE you believe hampered your mission, here’s another pro-tip: Pelosi didn’t write them. Civilian influence or decisions on ROEs come from the administration, not librul CNN.

    And what I’d be curious about for this planned mission, what level of contingency planning doesn’t include the possibility of running into local civilians? Command never had any earlier thoughts or guidance on that? You’re trying to tell me the first time that was pondered was on a mountaintop by four guys, and all your team members immediately knew they were screwed by running into goatherders because of the Vast Liberal Wing Conspiracy back home? Tell me another story.

  64. 64.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Or am I reading too much into your previous comments, and that while you’ll label “the average liberal would have been outraged and calling for court-martials, etc.” a typical position for a liberal, you feel there is nothing that makes it a “typical liberal position”?

    Not at all. Just very simply, that the average liberal would be calling for punishment, and the average conservative would be defending the actions.

    The response is typical. The position itself is fairly normal across the board also: members of the military who commit crimes in war should be charged with said crime. Again, I’m not disagreeing with the reponse or the position.

  65. 65.

    josephdietrich

    August 31, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    You know, it sucks that those guys got killed. But they essentially sacrificed themselves for the lives of three innocents. To my sense of morality, they did a very good deed, but got sticked for it. Yet now that I read Luttrell, who seems to be saying it was all about knuckling under to fear of unjust prosecution by the bad, evil, human-rights aware liberal-types back home, it lessens the worth of that deed.

    I find that quite sad.

  66. 66.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    This is an extension of the same meme used to justify torture.

    “A terrorist is captured who knows the location of a nuclear weapon set to go off in an American city in 1 hour.”

    4 SEAL team members were sent into an enemy controlled area of Afgan-rug-istan in 2005?

    Uh, didn’t we beat the Taliban back in 2002?

    These guys weren’t an operational unit, they were sent in to spot targets for the flyboys 10,000 feet above. The bombs that would have been dropped can’t tell goatherders from goat shit.

    If we weren’t busy in Iraq fighting people who had nothing to do with 9/11, we would have had the troops available to go in with infantry and surround the enemy, and force them to surrender or die, hopefully avoiding civilian casualties or keeping them to a minimum.

    We prefer tactics that kill lots of innocent women and children rather than risk the life of one soldier or marine.

    Cuz we’re the good guys.

    Kill ’em all, let Allah sort ’em out!

  67. 67.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    August 31, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    I was making fun of those who predicted it would be candy and flowers in Iraq.

    That’s not how it will come off for a lot of folks who read it.

    You are joking (what’s more comedy gold than dead soldiers, after all?) that maybe these SEALS in Afghanistan were idiots who thought they’d get candy and flowers from the Taliban, the same way as those idiots before them that thought Iraq would be all candy and flowers (even though the SEALS weren’t even in the country to which “candy and flowers” referred). Hilarious!

    Gosh, how could one think that was tasteless? Maybe you should have a contest: Name the last thoughts of those dead SEALS in Afghanistan!

    And even if I were making fun of them which I was not, would that be more morally repugnant than suggesting we just implement a free-fire zone in every theatre?

    What on earth does one remark have to do with the other? Sick is sick, repugnant is repugnant, and tasteless is tasteless. It doesn’t matter if you can find something worse, does it?

    Take your outrage and shove it.

    Sorry, I don’t do outrage. Just write more carefully, especially when referring to dead heroes who made a very humane decision and suffered the ultimate consequence. Maybe making a joke about them isn’t very funny.

  68. 68.

    rawshark

    August 31, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    This is better than anything Winston Smith could’ve cooked up in his office at the Ministry of Truth. Forces for good can’t complete their mission because of the actions of a stab in the back movement in the homeland. If it wasn’t for ‘those’ people we’d have won this war long ago. As Cassidy says, ‘right’ thinking people will believe this story. And by believe it I mean they will swallow without question the notion that it was the liberals back home who FUBAR’d the mission. Osama bin Goldstein would be in Gitmo right now if they had any love for their country.

  69. 69.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    For years I’ve been saying that we need a 6th “service” with the organizational mission of “Peacekeeping/Counter Insurgency” missions.

    Maybe with training at helping survivors of natural disasters too, like after Katrina?

    Quasi-military units trained and equipped to move in, set up shelters, provide food, sanitation and medical facilities? With special units to supplement local authorities at search and rescue operations, evacuation, and damage control?

    Sounds like a stupid fucking librul idea to me.

  70. 70.

    AnonE.Mouse

    August 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    josephdietrich makes an excellent point.The storyteller diminishes the heroism of his comrades by attributing their decision to fear of liberals rather than their own moral judgement.Although,to be fair,when I lived in San Diego my longhair friends and I were fond of wandering over to Coronado and kicking SEAL ass.

  71. 71.

    Steve

    August 31, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Every time I’ve heard of soldiers getting court-martialed over civilian deaths in a war zone, it’s been an unambiguous case of gratuitous killing. Like the soldiers in Iraq who couldn’t find the insurgent they went into town to look for, so they shot the old guy next door instead.

    I’ve never heard of anyone getting put on trial, let alone sentenced to prison, over a killing they believed was necessary to complete their mission.

  72. 72.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Unless he was the OIC (he wasn’t) then the decision to kill the goatherds or let them go was not his, it was the decision of the lieutenent who was in charge (Navy Lt’s are the Army equivilent of captains.)

    Such decisions are not put up to a vote in the military, so how did Lutrell know what his CO was thinking? Questioning orders is frowned upon, and disobeying them will get you shot, and the ROE’s are orders.

    The guys who hit the beaches at Normandy, Iwo Jima, and lots of other places knew that following orders might get them killed, but they still followed them.

    BTW- reports of this incident say that over 100 Taliban/al Qaida fighters were killed in the ensuing battle. Chances are that when they went in pursuit of the SEAL’s they left their women and children behind, so the decision not to execute the innocent goatherds saved many more innocent lives.

  73. 73.

    Faux News

    August 31, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Lambchop: Please go honor our glorious departed soliders by enlisiting in the army or marines first thing after Labor Day weekend.

    In the mean time this country is grateful for the Keyboard Kourage you continue to display

  74. 74.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    Lambchop: Please go honor our glorious departed soliders by enlisiting in the army or marines first thing after Labor Day weekend.

    Remember, they can’t ask, so if you don’t tell you’ll be fine.

  75. 75.

    whippoorwill

    August 31, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    If I remember the rest of Lutrell’s story, he made it to a nearby village {maybe even the home the 3 goatherders} and these people fought off or at least held off the Taliban who surrounded the village demanding they give Lutrell up. The villagers in the end saved his life. Why did they do this. Later, several Taliban, spoke with uber reporter, known only as Geraldo and stated accusingly they would have the American devil if it hadn’t been for those pussy liberal villagers.

  76. 76.

    Cyrus

    August 31, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    Something like that doesn’t require a new service. A few years ago, the Army threw around the idea of forming “Peacekeeping” units, formed mostly of MP’s, support staff, and Engineers. I don’t know where the idea went, but I imagine it got lost in the Post 9/11 turnaround.

    You know, the first sentence there isn’t directly contradicted by the following two, but the dissonance is pretty strong. If the idea died right at the time that an effort began which would be fought chiefly by counterterrorism, peacekeeping and longterm work with local groups – basically, exactly what such a service would be meant for – then the current leadership is either incompetent or disagrees with us about its importance. Maybe they have good reasons for disagreeing and maybe the failure here is not in the Pentagon but in the White House, but still.

  77. 77.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Whoever wrote the Washington Times editorial is obviously not a veteran.

    The “correct military decision” is to follow orders.

    I guess Lutrell doesn’t understand what “duty, honor and country” really means.

    But lets turn it into one of those “terrorist with a nuke” moral dilemmas that the reich-wingers love.

    You and your mother have been captured by a group of terrorists who are holding guns to your head. In front of you is a pistol with a single bullet. You are told that your life will be spared and you can go free, but you must shoot and kill your mother. If you don’t kill her, the terrorists will kill you both. What do you do?

  78. 78.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Ya know, in 2002 the Green Berets/Special Forces did try to blend in and work with the comunities of Afghanistan, even growing beards. They were really trying for the hearts and minds.

    For some reason the Army decided that they had to shve their beards and wear regulation uniforms. I think that was a mistake, a terrible mistake and rather being close to the Afghans they were trying to befirend the military deliberately separated them visually and culturally.

  79. 79.

    capelza

    August 31, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    myiq2xu, I belive the author of that pice is one of the wingnut darlings, Diane West. Pipes. Malkin, etc love her.

    Oh and the co-author of Luttrell’s book is some dude named patrick Robinson, who write pot-boiler suspense novels. Go figure.

    I wonder how much of the book is Luttrell’s and how much is “pot-boiler”?
    The movie rights are already snapped up. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it will be intereswting to see who comes out of the woodwork when it gets filmed.

    I finally would like to know how the village that saved Luttrell’s life life has fared.

  80. 80.

    pacified

    August 31, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    because the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians we’ve killed has raised such a stink?

    Nice try.

  81. 81.

    timb

    August 31, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Luttrell’s vision of the RoE’s is just bullshit. Look at the guys at Haditha, where the RoE’s are basically the same. Those guys killed between 15-19 unarmed women and children and cannot be convicted of murder, because of the state of the remains (post-cover-up) and because the RoE’s allowed these men to “clear” houses with grenades and automatic weapons fire. Short-sighted tactics, but apparently not criminal behavior.

    Yesterday, I heard a lawyer call those Marines heroes. While I won’t call them criminals (except the one who plead out), I fail to see how shooting 6 year olds makes one a hero.

  82. 82.

    The Other Steve

    August 31, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    You know, it sucks that those guys got killed. But they essentially sacrificed themselves for the lives of three innocents. To my sense of morality, they did a very good deed, but got sticked for it. Yet now that I read Luttrell, who seems to be saying it was all about knuckling under to fear of unjust prosecution by the bad, evil, human-rights aware liberal-types back home, it lessens the worth of that deed.

    This is a very good point. Certainly in combination with Xanthippas comment above…

    You know, I heard Luttrell on NPR not long ago and he didn’t seem all that eager to blame “liberals” for not being able to kill people who threatened his unit. I’m not going to second-guess him or anything (pansy liberal value I know, to respect his experience) but what he said here sounds very different: “Luttrell knew in his soul that he should kill them. But, he adds, ‘I have another soul, my Christian soul.’”

    I am of the opinion that Luttrell came up with this new explanation, solely for the purpose of selling a book.

    He is demeaning the soldiers sacrifice here.

    Very sad. That someone would spit on his comrades memory in order to make a few bucks selling a book.

  83. 83.

    The Other Steve

    August 31, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    I enjoyed “Tears of the Sun”… a movie about a Seal team that was sent in to extract Americans. Now, ok, maybe Bruce Willis as a seal is ridiculous. But the soldiers were ordered to only get the Americans, and leave everybody else behind.

    They disobeyed those orders, and led the group of refugees by foot out of the war zone. Even though it put the entire team at risk, and they lost several members. Why? Because it was the right thing to do, and they knew it.

    Luttrell is saying, “saving your own ass is the duty of a soldier”. This man has no honor.

  84. 84.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    I grew up near Castle AFB in California. It was named for General Frederick Castle, who led bombing missions during WWII.

    En route to the target on his 30th mission, his plane lost an engine, forcing him to drop from the lead of the formation and his aircraft was then attacked by German fighters. Since he was flying over friendly troops on the ground, General Castle refused to jettison his bombs to gain speed. All of the crew, except General Castle and the pilot were able to escape before the plane exploded. For his heroism he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    That’s a hero. Luttrell is a pussy.

  85. 85.

    David

    August 31, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    myiq2xu Says:

    I remember hearing almost the exact same story about a special forces unit dropped into Iraq to locate SCUD launchers just before Gulf War I.

    Damn you Scott Beauchamp!

    capelza Says:

    I wonder how much of the book is Luttrell’s and how much is “pot-boiler”?

    Funny that “Beauchamp” is brought up. And how there are several comments on here question the veracity of Luttrell’s story.

    Has anyone perused the mil-bloggers? Are they giving this the “anti-Beauchamp” treatment?

  86. 86.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Has anyone perused the mil-bloggers? Are they giving this the “anti-Beauchamp” treatment?

    Malkin has done everything but slob his knob live on national television. But she’s a military groupie.

  87. 87.

    Andrei

    August 31, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    In case you missed it on the Newshour, here’s something relevant to this discussion. A very disturbing, and vital story they played this afternoon.

    Soldiers dealing with combat stress

  88. 88.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    August 31, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    Please go honor our glorious departed soliders by enlisiting in the army or marines first thing after Labor Day weekend.

    No. Freaking. Way. A “chickenhawk” attack? In 2007? Heh…chickenhawk. Those were good times.

    Remember, they can’t ask, so if you don’t tell you’ll be fine.

    Wow. And a “You’re Gay” response? It’s like a Moronic Taunt Museum in here tonight. Sixth grade… those were good times, too.

    No wonder this place has such a great rep for highminded debate these days. Great job turning this place around, John.

  89. 89.

    jrg

    August 31, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    That’s a hero. Luttrell is a pussy.

    I heard an interview with Luttrell on NPR, too. I don’t think I could call someone who’s trained as a SEAL and been in a war a “pussy”.

    I would say that he came off as angry and confused, which is too bad, because he made the right decision, under very difficult circumstances. He could have just as easily blamed the difficulty of this decision on the “Christians back home” or the “Geneva Conventions”. It’s just easier to target the “Liberals” because they are a more convenient and commonplace scapegoat (regardless of it he realizes it).

    Very sad, because the only way he will find peace with himself is to believe that he and his brothers did the right thing.

    I imagine that over time, he will come to understand that blaming “the liberals” cheapens their sacrifice, as posters of this board have so astutely pointed out.

  90. 90.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    I would say that he came off as angry and confused, which is too bad, because he made the right decision, under very difficult circumstances.

    He was willing to murder innocent people to save his own ass. I’ll stand by my “pussy” assessment. Secondly, it wasn’t his decision, it was his CO’s.

    Thirdly, we only know much of what allegedly happened from him, because he was the sole survivor. He could have Beauchamped the whole story.

  91. 91.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    No wonder this place has such a great rep for highminded debate these days.

    Having your head stuck all the way up your ass is not the same as “highminded.”

    Pull it out, take a deep breath, and join us in the reality-based community.

  92. 92.

    jrg

    August 31, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    He was willing to murder innocent people to save his own ass.

    He was willing to murder “potentially” innocent people. If they had murdered the goat-herders, they might not have been attacked, and he never would have known if they were innocent or not. A tough catch-22.

    They did not kill the goat herders, and they were attacked. That would seem (at least on the surface), to vindicate Luttrell’s position.

    But you’re right – If it was every soldier’s position to save his own ass first and foremost, there is no way he would have found support from the local population later.

    it wasn’t his decision, it was his CO’s.

    Well, it’s comforting to know that his CO’s CO promotes good leaders.

    He could have Beauchamped the whole story.

    Unlikely. A dead SEAL team is a little more tangible than a highly likely, but not validated story. I’m not questioning the events,.. I’m questioning Luttrell’s state of mind.

    At this point, he’s pretty lucky his CO was worried about the liberal media, otherwise he would be keeping a terrible secret for the rest of his life, instead of writing a book…

    Come to think of it, I’m starting to think you might be right about Luttrell.

  93. 93.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    He was willing to murder “potentially” innocent people.

    Under the doctrine of “original sin” no one is innocent, so kill them all, right?

    The goatherds were unarmed and not in uniform, and the ROE as well as the Geneva Conventions make illegal to kill them.

    He could have Beauchamped the whole story.

    Unlikely. A dead SEAL team is a little more tangible than a highly likely, but not validated story. I’m not questioning the events,.. I’m questioning Luttrell’s state of mind.

    I didn’t say made up, I said “Beauchamped” by which I sarcastically meant to exaggerate or alter the truth, not to fabricate completely.

    We know that 3/4’s of a SEAL team was killed, but we have to rely on the sole survivor for how they died. What if the others died because of something Luttrell did, and not because of the goatherds?

    Maybe he’s telling the truth, maybe he’s not, that’s all I’m saying.

  94. 94.

    Faux News

    August 31, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    Lambchop: OF COURSE you wouldn’t serve our country in any way. Funny how you didn’t deny being a pussy chickenhawk. A very relevant charge here in 2007. The Missioned Accomplished War in Iraq is still raging on. You could go to Afganistan and exact revenge on the Taliban too.

    Right Wing Piece of Shit Coward that you are go hide behind your keyboard.

  95. 95.

    jrg

    August 31, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    I said “Beauchamped” by which I sarcastically meant to exaggerate or alter the truth, not to fabricate completely.

    Oh, I thought you meant baseless, armchair speculation on a simple and highly likely story.

    Perhaps he did frag all his team members so that he could wander around alone in the wilderness of Afghanistan.

    My new theory is that there were no goat-herders at all. They were Yeti. Luttrell narrowly escaped with his life, but he fears to tell the whole tale because he may be accused of animal cruelty by the liberal media.

  96. 96.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Oh, I thought you meant baseless, armchair speculation on a simple and highly likely story.

    Like I said in an earlier post, I heard that goatherd story years ago only it happened in Iraq during Gulf War I.

    The difference was no SEALS’s were killed in that version.

    Remember that the official version was brought to you by the same people who brought you WMD’s, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman (versions 1-5) and “Mission Accomplished.”

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Won’t get fooled again – The Who

  97. 97.

    Jess

    August 31, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    what’s more comedy gold than dead soldiers, after all?

    Lambchop, I am shocked–SHOCKED!– that you would refer to our brave soldiers who have sacrificed all as “comedy gold.” That’s just sick.

    Oh wait. Maybe you were being sarcastic. Like John was.

  98. 98.

    Cassidy

    August 31, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    Like I said in an earlier post, I heard that goatherd story years ago only it happened in Iraq during Gulf War I.

    There is a similar story about a SF team that was in a hide site. If I remember correctly, they were found by a child.

  99. 99.

    Pb

    August 31, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    myiq2xu,

    What do you do?

    This sounds familiar…

    Harry: “Alright, pop quiz: The airport. Gunman with one hostage, he’s using her for cover, he’s almost to the plane. You’re a hundred feet away. (Long pause) Jack?”
    Jack: “Shoot the hostage.””
    Harry: “What?”
    Jack: “Take her out of the equation. Go for the good wound and he can’t get to the plane with her. Clear shot”
    Harry: “You are deeply nuts, you know that? ‘Shoot the hostage’… jeez…”

  100. 100.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    There is a similar story about a SF team that was in a hide site. If I remember correctly, they were found by a child.

    Bingo! I’m still looking for the story, but I recall it said that it was a kid herding goats that found the SF team.

  101. 101.

    myiq2xu

    August 31, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    Jack: “Shoot the hostage.”

    With a little creativity you can come up with scenarios where it is (or might be) morally correct to do just about anything.

    Example: Guy and girl hostage. He is told that if he rapes the girl, both of them will be released, but if he doesn’t, the girl will be raped anyway and both of them will be killed.

    Under those facts the guy would be saving her life by raping her, but the scenario is extremely implausible.

  102. 102.

    TenguPhule

    September 1, 2007 at 12:51 am

    Hearts and minds, deep thinkers. Hearts and minds.

    We have their hearts and minds right here.

    Hearts are stacked to the left.

    Minds are stacked to the right.

    Don’t mind all the blood.

  103. 103.

    Redleg

    September 1, 2007 at 12:55 am

    Looks to me like these SEALS and whoever sent them on this FUBAR mission fucked up and then decided to blame lib’ruls and lawyers back home for their fuck up. When’s the last time a civilian lawyer in the U.S. went after a U.S. soldier for killing a goatherd during time of war?

  104. 104.

    myiq2xu

    September 1, 2007 at 1:41 am

    When’s the last time a civilian lawyer in the U.S. went after a U.S. soldier for killing a goatherd during time of war?

    Who would be filing the charges? John Ashcroft or Abu Gonzales? Not in this lifetime. Donald Rumsfeld was the Sect’y of War, and he wasn’t gonna, Monkey Boy would never complain, and neither would his boss, Dickhead Cheney.

    So who were they afraid of? Nancy Pelosi? Josh Marshall? Kos? Some other librul reporter?

    Shorter Luttrell: “If we can’t kill anyone who gets in our way, the terrorists win!”

  105. 105.

    dslak

    September 1, 2007 at 3:26 am

    When’s the last time a civilian lawyer in the U.S. went after a U.S. soldier for killing a goatherd during time of war?

    Maybe it’s just my lowly, civilian thinking, but I thought we had some kind of system to deal with this. I think it’s called the Universal Code of Military Justice.

    Typically, the civilian response to poorly executed military ventures would be to blame the civilian leadership for starting them in the first place. But we can’t blame Bush, of course, and he’d just blame the soldiers. We can’t blame the soldiers, both because we need them as political props and because their job is mostly to follow orders, anyway.

    It sounds like Luttrell’s CO made a sound call in not killing some civilians, it turns out their fears were realized, and the men on that SEALs team paid with their lives. One of the things soldiers realize when they sign up for is that they may be asked to give up their lives for their country. Sadly, not every life can be given in victorious combat with the enemy. But if they weren’t killed by anyone’s incompetence or indifference, and they died because they were honoring the ideals for which this country is supposed to be great, how can there be anything dishonorable or worrying about that? They wouldn’t look so great if they killed a bunch of innocent goatherders, then died in combat anyway, would they?

    Blaming the liberals not only cheapens their sacrifice, but it means that these people think that our soldiers shouldn’t care who they kill. Once we’ve gone down that road, it would become even more obvious than it is now just what we’re fighting for.

  106. 106.

    Ted

    September 1, 2007 at 6:16 am

    (what’s more comedy gold than dead soldiers, after all?)

    I don’t know. Since you advocate more of them in Iraq, why don’t you tell us?

  107. 107.

    Ted

    September 1, 2007 at 6:24 am

    No. Freaking. Way. A “chickenhawk” attack? In 2007? Heh…chickenhawk. Those were good times.

    So, if come April ’08, when the Army says it just can’t continue the troop splurge without more personnel, I’m sure you’ll help them out. You’ll have to, as Dear Leader will say we can’t reduce the troop levels.

  108. 108.

    Ted

    September 1, 2007 at 6:31 am

    Lambchop: OF COURSE you wouldn’t serve our country in any way.

    In its mind it thinks it is. Remember, arguments that blogging/commenting/etc actually are a component of the War! On! Evil! and are a service to the country have shown up in many of the top wingnut blogs, and even in NRO, if I recall. They actually think they’re contributing to the war effort.

    A person who sends a pack of fresh socks to a couple of soldiers contributes more to the war effort than these idiots of the 82nd Chairborne.

  109. 109.

    Xanthippas

    September 1, 2007 at 10:42 am

    I am of the opinion that Luttrell came up with this new explanation, solely for the purpose of selling a book.

    I didn’t really want to have to say it myself, but yeah, that’s kind of how it comes off. I think probably what he writes is what he really thinks, but when he got on NPR he didn’t really want to come off as a wild killer infested with right-wing paranoia, so then it was about his “Christian” soul. He was also asked explicitly in the interview if he felt the restrictions were too great and he said: “I don’t kill civilians sir…I’m not saying open up free reign on civilians.” Well, what is he saying then? He’s complaining about restrictive ROE’s and being afraid of liberals at home second-guessing his men, but is he also saying he wouldn’t have killed those civilians anyway even if he’d had more leeway to do so?

    I really am not trying to pull a Beauchamp by pointing this out, but the man’s own words seem a little incongruous and inconsistent. He did an honorable thing by not killing those civilians, and it’s tragic that his comrades died, possibly as a result. But he sounds like he’s trying to have it both ways: he doesn’t want to kill civilians, but it’s the liberals fault that he can’t kill civilians. And yes, that’s a convenient position to take for someone who wants to be interviewed by Michelle Malking AND NPR.

  110. 110.

    Tehanu

    September 1, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    “And I suddenly flashed on the prospect of many, many years in a U.S. civilian jail alongside murderers and rapists.”—Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell”

    And killing three unarmed civilians ISN’T murder, so you’re not a murderer?

    somebody in this thread said it: the ROE weren’t written by them awful libruls. If the military geniuses who DID write them left out something as obvious as what to do when your secret mission is compromised, it just proves that military intelligence really is an oxymoron.

  111. 111.

    TenguPhule

    September 1, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    He was willing to murder “potentially” innocent people.

    Killing unarmed civilians is murder, no ifs ands or buts.

    The Blogger ‘Captain’ is a fucking moron. Writing off the ROE regarding civilians and 9/11 suddenly becomes a LEGITIMATE military action. The stupid boggles the mind, as if we didn’t have enough problems, the Right insists on trying to make bigger ones.

  112. 112.

    stew

    September 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    This reminds me of a post I read (perhaps here) about the “Ticking Time Bomd” scenerio> Should anything like that happen, do what you have to do…but be ready to face any possible consequences. If they truly felt they would be walking into a death trap by letting the hearders go, then abort the mission or kill them…and face possible justice for breaking the ROE.

  113. 113.

    Lynn Lightfoot

    September 3, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    I haven’t read all of the comments on this story, but somewhere after what? maybe 75 or a hundred, I began to wonder why no one was mentioning the goats. Do you think the SEALs could have killed the goatherders and no one would have noticed that the goats no longer had herders? Granted, I’m not knowledgeable about the ways of goats or of villagers who depend on their herds for a living, but I’m certain the villagers of that region would have known something was up if the herders had been killed.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - Flyover Country Spring 2
Image by Albatrossity (5/18/25)

Recent Comments

  • Ben Cisco on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Week (May 19, 2025 @ 7:11am)
  • Suzanne on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Week (May 19, 2025 @ 7:10am)
  • sab on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Week (May 19, 2025 @ 7:10am)
  • Baud on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Week (May 19, 2025 @ 7:10am)
  • catclub on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Week (May 19, 2025 @ 7:07am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!