Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7126

how many of you have seen the movie "black hawk down"? i saw it in the theater and picked up the dvd a couple of weeks ago. it was a great action flick- it has great effects, the acting is decent, and the whole thing kept me riveted.

the story is based upon true events which i will gloss over as not to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it. a secret mission to capture two men in somalia goes wrong when an american helicopter is shot down. the soldiers who thought they would be just monitering a street corner for just a few minutes now have to race across a hostile city to check for survivors. in the end, major forces had to be called into play, men died in the process, and one man was captured by hostile somalian troops.

this really bothered me. i understand that the armed forces has a code of honor that states "never leave a man behind". but do you think it's right to risk the lives of fifty soldiers to rescue one or two people?

what is your personal opinion on this?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12541

Depends on the situation. Troops will fight harder with and for each other if they know their asses and bodies will be rescued and not left behind by the others. Such a policy builds camaraderie and morale, both highly desirable assests to have in any unit of soldiers.

But when the chips are down and the costs in lives and wounded becomes too costly (as defined by the troops doing the fighting, not by some REMF) then any such rescue policy becomes insane and not worth it. It all depends on the situation. In downtown Mogadishu, Somalia it came close to that point where it wasn't worth it. But I think that if they hadn't went all out to rescue their comrades, discipline and defense would have broken down and more soldiers would have been lost and wounded in a pell-mell flight to get their asses out of there than there was.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

Hey, I agree with billgerat on something!

I enjoyed the movie as well, though got a little numb during some scenes when it was just bambambambambam over and over again...I just thought, "Ok, I got the point...the situation truly sucked."

On a similar point, I guess Clinton got a few bugs up his ass and whined at George Jr, saying, "Hey, I didn't complain about the mess your Dad left Somalia in!"

Hrm. Interesting, in light of how the disastrous mission came about, no?

I have to admit (no spoilers) that the ending really got to me in this film. Haven't really been that affected by a scene in a long time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

"but do you think it's right to risk the lives of fifty soldiers to rescue one or two people?"
- What you "think" is irrelevant. You're expected to follow orders. It's not a democracy. It's not open for debate. I want to explain the mission of the Marine Corps. It's split into two different motives, the order is significant.

1. To fight battles, win wars.
2. Troop wellfare.

In that order, the primary objective is to ensure mission accomplishment at any/all costs. Whether that mission is to "take a hill" or "rescue a man", it is a mission which is identified by someone duly appointed to command. The mission must succeed. It is the paramount concern. Troop wellfare is always second. Always. Once the mission has been secured, then wellfare of the individuals can become the focus. If the wellfare IS the mission, so be it, but that is not at the discretion of the individual. You do not pick which orders you will follow and which you won't. Such a process of decision does not exist.

"what is your personal opinion on this?"
- This should be obvious. The unconditional and immediate obedience to orders is what keeps you and others alive in the face of danger.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7126

while your response was very informative on how the military approaches the situation, and i appreciate that view, the question was still deftly avoided by you.

unless, of course, you hold no opinions save those ingrained in you in the military.

do you think that according to your own personal moral standards that it is right to risk several lives for one or two? that is the question, and i apologize if it was initially too vague.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: I don't fukn' know!
Posts: 5137

if the person is dead, no. There is no point in wasting lives to recover a dead body.

But if the person is alive, I would hope so.... in a perfect world anyway. What would you want if you were that person... what would I want.

of course, it all depends on the details of the situation too. There are moments when people may need to make sacrifices for the greater good. But indeedy, I'd like to see everyone saved.

but I'm a goth artfag, what do I know

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

If you think I failed to answer your question, let me try to be more clear:

"The price of life is irrelevant."

"do you think that according to your own personal moral standards that it is right to risk several lives for one or two?"
- Irrelevant. My own personal moral standards have no bearing on my duty to obey the orders and direction of my superiors and to carry out and initiate those orders. It is my responsibility to interpret and execute the orders and intentions of my command and the objects of the mission. What I "feel" is irrelevant. To answer your question, I don't "think" it is "right" to evaluate personal morality or question legal and lawful orders.

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

"if the person is dead, no. There is no point in wasting lives to recover a dead body."
- If you died in combat, I'm sure your family and loved ones might like a body to bury. A body to bury so it can be properly mourned.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7126

i think i see the difficulty in this exchange. i would like to think that you have a mind of your own, and that you could debate here with me freely. however, it seems that free thought and rhetorical exchange is beyond your capabilities due to your sworn oath to duty.

and i did not mean any of that in a sarcastic sense. i'm very disappointed that you cannot put aside your sense of duty to the corps in order to have a discussion of a philosophical sort that really amounts to nothing, and would have no affect on you or your ability to serve this country. i thought that perhaps we could discuss this on a personal level. but as you've already stated, you as a person are irrelevant.

have a good night.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: St.louis MO.
Posts: 245

Wraith and Billgerat said it best. You may think the Marines are mindless, but it really does come down to patriotism and honor. It is drilled into any new recruit from the time they step off the bus until you are discharged. Teamwork is most important in any military unit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7126

i understand billgerat's point, and it was a very valid one. i'm sure that if i were in the military, knowing that the men that fought beside me would fight even harder to get me back would make me feel confident and more willing to fight. and i also understand the wraith's immediate sense of duty.

however, when a person enters military service, they should realize from the beginning that there is a very real chance that they can die in combat, in one manner or another. especially those who join special forces units. these men are not ignorant- they know what they face when they go out on their missions, and i have great respect for that.

i guess my big hangup stems from being completely ignorant of military life. if it were me personally, i would be pissed if i were in a special ops force and my fellow soldiers risked their lives to retrieve me from such a hostile area as what was portrayed in that movie. that, to me, is a ridiculous risk of more lives. i would be pissed if someone close to me died retrieving a body from the battlefield. i know that families like to have closure, but at what cost? is it fair for a man to die attempting to carry a dead comrade off the battlefield? life is more precious than the dead weight we leave behind when we're gone.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Playa d'en London
Posts: 9788

whats that line about 'echos in eternity'?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

"i would like to think that you have a mind of your own, and that you could debate here with me freely."
- I can debate with you. I will not debate the "process" involved with the execution of orders nor will I debate the structure of the military to facilitate the efficient fullfilment of mission objectives. I have a mind of my own, and my mind tells me my personal feelings have no place in non-personal environments. I have a duty and obligation. The personal feelings of myself and/or others are not the priority. I don't know if you missed it, but in those two objectives I stated prior, there was no "How do I feel?" listed.

"however, it seems that free thought and rhetorical exchange is beyond your capabilities due to your sworn oath to duty."
- Look, mall rat... It doesn't matter if I think it's wrong to kill people whose first name is "Bob" or everyone who has pink hair. If I'm given orders to do so and I believe those orders to be lawful, I will follow them. My personal thoughts on the matter, or the hundreds and/or THOUSANDS of other personal thoughts of everyone else in the unit - doesn't come into play. It is my responsiblity to ensure mission accomplishment. It is my responsiblity to ensure good order and discipline of the troops. I cannot ensure the chain of command is supported nor propose any continuity of command if my men see me questioning orders, NOR should I question those orders, NOR do I want hundreds/thousands of others questioning each and every order given. We ALL will eventually die, in the wrong situtation, given this condition. Hesitiation; kills.

What I "think" about a subject, in terms of which orders I have received - is displaced from my own ideals. If I and thousands of others sat around thinking, "Is this 'right'?" - the mission will fail. We will all die. The mission cannot fail. I must not. We must not die. We must remain alive to ensure the mission succeeds.

"i'm very disappointed that you cannot put aside your sense of duty to the corps in order to have a discussion of a philosophical sort that really amounts to nothing."
- You're wrong. I have given you my philosophical opinion. And, that opinion is that my opinion doesn't matter how much I think a life is worth. It doesn't matter. If my mission and the mission of the men I am charged to command is to save a single life - then that is the single most important thing and is the only thing that means a damn thing in my universe, at that moment in time.

"i thought that perhaps we could discuss this on a personal level."
- We have. I don't like you nor would I cross the street to spit in your face. However, if you were injured or dead behind enemy lines and my mission/orders were to retrieve your body - then that becomes the only thing I give a damn about. It becomes the only thing in my universe. It is my only priority. It is all that matters to me. The mission will succeed.

It must.

It doesn't matter if I can't personally stand to look at your face. It's irrelevant.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 2936

I think that a major point of the whole Mog battle has been overlooked. Most of the men that made it out of the city went back in voluntarily to get their buddies out. The entire based turn out, from washers to cooks, to join the convoy back into the fight. Yes, I'm sure that many of them went due to orders, but I think mostly it was because there where fellow Americans trapped in a shitpile. I know if I was trapped, pinned down in a human anthill of ignorant savages, I would most definatly want someone to come and get my ass out, even if that meant we had to waste the whole damn city. One American life, ESPECIALLY mine, is worth more than the entire nation of Somalia IMHO.

Also, there where more than just a couple of Americans trapped. the End result was around 75+ out of about 100 men killed and wounded. I suggest that anyone interested in this fight read the original book. The movie, while absolutly great, left out so much detail and the personal emotions and thoughts of the combatants.

The biggest problem I think was the fact that the politicians were playing politics instead of using the army for what it's for. Their job is to specifically kill people and break things. They are in no way trained, or equiped to be a police force. nor should they be expected to. the entire situation smacks of Slick Willy's arroganance and total ignorance of how the real world is run. When dealing with the third world, you cannot use first world tactics. You Must go in and kill them wholesale as they do each other. Power and violence are all they understand and anyone that thinks otherwise wears Rose Colored Glasses. It's dirty, it's messy, and yes, in many ways beneath us, but you have to admit, War has solved more conflicts than any other other thing throughout history.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12541

To be fair, TEFL, Somalia was a mess left to Clinton, and it happened very early in Clinton's first term. Each and every president that has been in office thinks (and is also advised by others) that such messes can be cleaned up by just sending in the military and everything will be hunky-dory. All presidents have this arrogance. Then when ops go wrong and people die, they usually quickly learn that it isn't so simple just to send the grunts in, and that there is an awesome responsibility and cost to lose men in such adventures. After the lesson is learned, the politicians are a lot more reluctant to use military force without first exploring other options, and when they do, they are more careful and selective of it. Note that Clinton never made the same mistake again.

And Wraith, you are quite the robot. You completely missed the whole point of what morgana was asking of you. During battle you are correct to assume that personal feelings and thoughts should be pushed aside and orders carried out. But if you haven't noticed (and you haven't), our military doesn't want robots; those, like you, are the kind who blindly carry out kinds of orders that lead to war crimes. The German soldiers of WWII were "just carrying out orders" when they eradicated entire villages in reprisals, and Mai Lai was mostly the same type of deal, just carrying out orders. Our military does want men that can carry out orders, but it also wants men that can think for themselves and be able to distinguish between orders that are lawful and those which are not.

I fail to understand why you think you can not have an opinion of your own and still be able to carry out orders. I have never been in the military - a birth defect robbed me of that choice. But I do work for the DOD, and for me it is my way of serving my country since the military option is out. If you have read some of my posts you can tell that I am no fan of Bush Jr. In my opinion he is unfit to be our president, a complete jerk who is subservient to big buisness and the far-right lunatic fringe. But whether I like him or not, he is still the Commander In Chief of the military and its establishments, and whatever orders he gives in that respect I am duty bound to, and will, carry them out to the best of my abilities. I can obey, but at least I still have a mind of my own.

God forbid that you ever achieve high rank in the Service. It's idiots like you whom I truly fear to lead and order our troops into battle.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

How adorable. Gosh, I don't think anyone in the military has ever been confronted with the term, "robot" before. Nope. How shall I reply? I've never had to address this comment before. Nope.

I think you need to re-read my post(s). I stated interpretation of orders and the intention of the command, is a responsibility. In the absence of orders, what one would do, is not what has been the item of debate. If you had any idea how many USMC leadership training "courses" are required throughout the lifecycle of a Marine, to which the same, tired, speach about "thinking for themselves", you'd go blind by rolling your eyes so much. I suppose you missed my statements about determining if an order is lawful? I suppose you can easily disregard this determination being within the "programming" of a "robot". You're a moron, right to the core. Do I have to sit here and type paragraph after paragraph of my personal and/or professional views or approaches to leadership? That isn't what is beind discussed. Have you noticed this? What was asked is what we felt about rescuing fallen comrades. The point is still, in this specific situation of specific context citing a movie, is that personal opinion is thrown to the wind.

I would love to sit here and echo the same speel you have about "robots", "thinking warriors", but frankly - it is a subject matter that is heard more times than I can even count. We all know the speaches. We all know the ideology. You're not covering any subjects of rocket science or profound observation. Whooptie friggin do.

"I fail to understand why you think you can not have an opinion of your own and still be able to carry out orders."
- That's because you're a moron like all the others. My opinion is that my opinion, in the scope of things, especially when the scenario involves the possible rescue of an indvidual whose parents and/or wife/children might very well miss them - or desire to place their loved one to rest through proper burial...doesn't matter. How many times do I have to say this? I've repeated it several times now. I'm running out of ways to reword it. I think you're a pre-canned jackass. Your comments offer nothing new that everyone in the military hasn't heard lectured a thousand times before. Yet, in light of this, I'd still have the opinion that my opinion of you OR my opinion of the value of your life is irrelevant, if we're talking about you being in need of rescue.

Clear? Jackass?

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: At Home
Posts: 4056

Short and sweet -

A life in the forces is worth what your COs are willing to pay, no more, no less. They make the decisions and derive orders, you get those orders and attempt to fulfill them, costing is not your job, it's theirs.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wraith
I suppose you missed my statements about determining if an order is lawful?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: WDM, IA
Posts: 2963

You are only required to follow orders that are lawful. In fact, you can be punished for executing an unlawful order. If you receive an order to "Kill all the children at the local WallMart", that obviously, is not lawful. If I disobey, as I should, I will not (should not) be punished under the UCMJ. Likewise, I should not be punished for obeying an apparently lawful order. Through the execution of a lawful order, the individual issuing the order is responsible. Blindly following ordres is not a USMC doctrine.

There are no specific requirements that identify what is a "lawful order" and what isn't. That is to say, there are no special documents which outline this. The criteria can easily be determined on the basis of the name, alone...

What orders do not violate any local, state, federal, or international laws? Lawful is lawful, whether talking about military orders or even vehicle inspection stickers. I cannot be ordered to break the law. If an order does not break any law, it is lawful. It's that simple. Google for "lawful order" and you'll find lots of examples in both directions.

EDIT:

I should add, some orders are unlawful because they would break policy/procedure. To offer a rather extreme example... The order to "show me your penis" is not lawful. Now, it's perfectly legal for me to walk up to you and say, "Paintchips, show me your penis". And, it's legal for you to show me, assuming we're not standing in the middle of a shopping mall. However, this specific example would obviously violate sexual harassment policies in a workplace. The context is obviously important. If I'm undergoing a physical review and some medical doctor tells me to show him my penis, well... you get the idea.

No order is lawful if it violates some directive of the Commendant of the USMC, etc. If the Commendant says, "Every Marine will get 8 hours of sleep each night, guaranteed." - it would be unlawful for someone to order you to do something that goes against the Commendant's directives.

Likewise, an example in the reverse; a LAWFUL order on the basis of policy would be, "You may not take eyedrops without permision." It's not illegal to use eye drops.

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere but here
Posts: 4420

this is going to be fun.
I totally agree with TEFL on this, to really understand the situation one really has to read the book which is much more in depth than the movie. also the movie (for the benefit of etertainment value) changes certain things. There were two crash sites. the ffact that two Blackhawks went down was the major problem. the Rangers/Delta/SEALs had only one rescue team available and when Wolcotts Hawk crashed the rescue team went there first. the problem was that there wasnt really adequate air support. The AH-6 little birds whilst providing support for ground troops couldnt really protect the much larger black hawks. the shit hit the fan when Durrants Blackhawk went down (after he had taken up Wolcotts posistion). Basically the Rangers were stretched too much, and couldnt cope with two crash sites. Crash sites always have to be checked out simply because downed aircraft have to be either recovered or destroyed (as in totally destroyed) so that any sensitive information is not available to the enemy.

Most of the men in Mog did go back into battle to save their comrades, and they went willingly.

Wraith. there was a dispute over command prodedure between Commander Steele of the Rangers and Jonathon Howe of the Delta Force (made Admiral before he retired). Delta Force were IMHO the only reason that the Rangers got as many men out of the buildings surrounding the Wolcott crash site as they did. Steele was higher in chain of command than Howe, and was totally pissed off when Howe took some of Steele's Rangers to set up a perimeter around th buildings in which they were pinned down in. my somewhat nagative view on the Rangers does stem from reading this book, and probably shouldnt, but they seemed to be rather arrogant in their ability. Delta force did their job, they captured the targets they were supposed to get, it was the Rangers who fucked up.

i do find the idea of sending live men into a incredibly dangerous military zone to recover dead bodies, somewhat illogical. you start off with 5 dead troops, but after sending 30 men to rescue the dead bodies your end up with 15 dead. where is the logic in that? that wasnt entirely the case in Mog, seeing as their were as many live men as dead pinned down, so they were resucing live men as well.

i would have not allowed D-Boys Shughart and Gordon to go down to Durrants crash site, basically they knew they were going to die when they dropped in. they knew that they would not be able to hold off the somalis and yet they still dropped in. as far as i can tell they lost their lives without necesisity. especially seeing as they did not actually rescue anyone, they didnt know if anyone was alive when they dropped in, and even if ther was, they couldnt defend the sire anyway. totally pointless. Add to that the fact that Durrant (the only survivor from his crash) was released by the somali's anyway, Shughart and Gordon lost their lives for effectively nowt. they wre really brave, but ....well i have no idea what they were trying to achieve.

the thing is that the Mission was a sucess, it was just that the sucess had a high cost in human life.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged