Marcus Luttrell book "Lone Survivor"

[ChrisOH]

Hello everyone!

As some of you may know, I belong to a Book Club for Men that meets once
monthly. The selection for June's upcoming meeting is the book "Lone Survivor"
by Marcus Luttrell, a former US Navy SEAL and, as the name implies, the lone
survivor of Operation Redwing, a failed four-man counterinsurgency mission in
Afghanistan in June 2005. Three of the four SEALs were killed in a firefight
with Taliban militants, with Luttrell surviving and being aided by sympathetic
Afghan villagers opposed to the Taliban. Meanwhile, a rescue helicopter
searching for the SEALs was shot down by a Taliban rocket and all about were
killed (the number was in the teens, I believe), making it the deadliest day
ever for US special forces.

At the start of the mission, the SEALs were attempting to seek and out and kill
or capture a major Taliban leader. While in a precarious hiding place, they
were stumbled upon by a small groud of herdsmen and their flock of goats.
Although the herdsmen were unarmed (and thus protected from being killed under
US military rules of engagement at the time), Luttrell said he could tell they
were Taliban by the "evil" look they had about them, and he wanted to kill the
herdsmen to prevent them from reporting the SEALs position to the Taliban.
However, this would go against the rules of engagement. Luttrell was not the
commanding officer on the mission, but he says the commander, Lt. Michael
Murphy, decided to call a vote. One SEAL wanted to kill the herdsmen, one
wanted to spare them, and one abstained, so Lt. Murphy left it up to Luttrell,
saying he'd go along with whatever decision Marcus made.

Luttrell claimed that he was afraid if they killled them, locals would find the
herdsmen's bodies, run to al-Jazeera with a report that US troops had killed
unarmed civilians, and word would get out to "liberal media" in the US, whom he
feels villainize American soliders and revere terrorists, and the SEALs would be
charged with murder. So he said he voted to spare the herders, as he was more
afraid of the liberal media than the Taliban. Shortly after the herders left,
an army of between 50 and 200 Taliban encircled the SEALs, leading to the
firefight that killed his three teammates.

Luttrell blames himself for letting the herders go, saying he knew militarily
that killing them was the right thing to do, but he was so afraid of the liberal
media he caved in and let them go, so he also blames the media for forcing him
into that decision. In his words:

"I'd turned into a fucking liberal, a half-assed, no-logic, nitwit, all heart,
no brains, and the judgment of a jackrabbit."

A few pages later, he also writes:

"And let the liberals go to hell in mule cart, and take with them all their
fucking know-nothing rules of etiquette in war and human rights and
whatever other bullshit makes 'em happy."

He sprinkles in various other anti-liberal diatribes and epithets throughout the
book, and feels the rules of engagement are what hamper US forces, and liberals
are the source of those rules. He also talks about how he didn't feel the
abuses by US soldiers of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were that bad,
considering what was done on 9/11.

Despite his cussing-like-a-sailor (literally!) language, he claims to be a
Christian and that God saved him by always making his rifle end up near him,
even during slides and falls down the mountainsides when we was eluding the
Taliban.


There's something troubling to me about this book (it was written in 2007, and
I've been unsuccessful in finding any followups or comments online by Luttrell
regarding the Obama administration, the death of bin Laden, etc.) One
troubling thing is the persistent blaming of "liberals" for his predicament and
his mates' deaths -- he talks about how liberals hate American soliders but love
terrorists, yet gives no examples of anyone holding or stating such a position,
and I just don't see this "liberal bias" in the media. Maybe I'm just not
watching the right news to see it (I rarely watch TV news, but check the major
network websites (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox) pretty much daily, as well as read the
local newspaper. Most articles I've come across seem to be in support of the
troops themselves (here in northeast Ohio, several highways and parks have been
named for local soldiers killed in the Iraqi and Afghan wars) but many have been
critical of the government's *handling* of the wars (as they have every right to
be -- after all, it's our tax money and more importantly, our citizens' lives at
stake; shouldn't we be allowed an opinion on the management of the wars?) Also,
the "rules of engagement" are drawn up by the military themselves, as they have
to balance short-term operations with wider goals of political and international
support (e.g. killing unarmed civilians isn't going to win the US any friends in
the Arab world, or elsewhere, for that matter, and would likely lead to more
terrorism and less support for the war effort). I'm also troubled by his "fuck
human rights" attitude -- since he claims to be a Christian, is this what Jesus
would think of human rights?

I've also found through some web searches that Luttrell has appeared on Pat
Robertson's and Glenn Beck's media programs to promote his book. I don't really
consider myself a liberal or a conservative (I have agreements and disagreements
with both sides), but I feel the blatant political and religious pandering takes
away from the poignancy of the story. I can certainly understand him being
emotional after his ordeal and looking for someone, somewhere to pin blame on --
but isn't that what books have editors for? The story, I feel would be
compelling enough without these tirades, and genuine emotion could also be
conveyed without them. Also, shilling for right-wingers like Robertson and Beck
doesn't exactly help his cause -- it makes it look like those epithets and
tirades were left in the book on purpose to appeal to the right-wing crowd.

Does anyone understand this "liberal media" concept? Is there something I'm not
seeing? I certainly have enough common sense to know that in a battlefield
situation, there isn't time to pull out a rulebook and figure out what to do --
troops must act based on their training and experience. However, blaming
"liberals" for the failure of Operation Redwing is a bit baffling to me.
(Besides, we had a Republican president and Republican-led Congress in 2005 --
so who were all these "liberals" making wartime decisions?)

It should prove an interesting discussion at the book club meeting -- I'll keep
everyone posted on how it turns out (it's scheduled for 6/20).


Thanks for any opinions or input!

[Earl]

I have the utmost respect for our servicemen who put their lives on the line for our country. I'm sure that Marcus Luttrell is dealing with undeserved feelings of guilt, and my heart goes out to him.

I don't feel qualified to comment on his charges about liberal bias in the media, particularly in regard to the actions of our servicemen overseas. But as I've observed from past coverage of the news regarding other issues, I do believe there's been a liberal bias in the news media, just as there's a conservative bias as well (depending on the newspaper or TV channel). I also realize that people on both sides of the political spectrum make charges of bias that in some cases simpy aren't true. One man's truth is another man's bias. I realize this may sound a little bit wishywashy, but it's true.

Sadly, as much as I hate to say this, Luttrell's cussing is inconsistent with the life of a faithful Christian. In other words, cussing clearly is a sin (for anyone). His inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, inadvertently gives resentful and intolerant nonbelievers an occasion to mock those who endeavor to be faithful in their profession as Christians. Somehow I don't think this bothers Pat Robertson, who seems to be more concerned about politics than he is about moral principle.

ChrisOH, please tell us how your book club discussion goes.

[ChrisOH]

Well, we had the book discussion on Monday the 20th about "Lone Survivor".

Although there were many comments made, the consensus was that, like you, Earl, we respected the efforts of soldiers like Luttrell, both in the training required to get where they are and in the actual combat, but that we didn't have to agree with his views. As one gentleman put it, (I'm paraphrasing here), Luttrell comes across as biased, arrogant, racist/xenophobic, ignorant of other cultures, and narrow-minded -- but other than that, I'd want him on my side in a battle!

None of us bought the "liberal media" line -- in fact, most major news organizations are owned by large conglomerates who would seem to favor right-leaning, pro-big-business policies. (Cleveland's local AM radio station, WTAM -- which bills itselfs as "NewsRadio 1100" -- has ALL right-wing commentators in its daily lineup -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, you name 'em, they air 'em.)

One possible reason we came up with for the hatred of "liberal media" (mythical or not) that some soldiers have is that in the military, you're taught to do what you're told and ask no questions about the rightness of wrongness of your actions. (Indeed, in the heat of battle, there's no time for such analysis -- survival is what counts at that point.) However, reporters and media professionals do ask the tough questions about policy and ethics, since it's their job to provide some perspective to events. (At least they should, sadly, real investigative reporting is becoming rarer, replaced by regurgitated "press releases".) So the two groups have fundamentally different agendas.

All in all, it was a fairly action-packed book, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who can't stomach a heavy dose of right-wing propaganda.