Jun 11

Yeah, we beat up on Peter Berg and Marcus Luttrell a lot on this blog. Mainly, it comes from wanting to correct the record on Navy SEALs. For instance, on The Q and A with Jeff Goldsmith, Peter Berg said:

“Navy SEALs are the least political people I’ve ever met...To talk to Navy SEALs about politics is an exercise in pointlessness.”

Berg repeated this claim in dozens of interviews; so did members of the media. In our research on SEALs, though, we’ve come across quite another beast from Berg’s archetype of a SEAL:

The political Navy SEAL.

As a group, SEALs have an incredibly powerful (and positive) public image, and some of them use that image for political purposes. In fairness, the vast majority of SEALs go through their service and post-service lives without using their time in uniform as a platform to express political views. Most SEALs. Some, though, can’t get out of the spotlight. These uber-vocal SEALs give the lie to the myth peddled by Berg and others that SEALs eschew politics to simply do their job, especially since Navy SEALs, when they do go public with a political message, get a lot of press.

We’ve found quite a few Navy SEALs who are very political. A few examples:

- Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. First up, we have a series of Political Action Committees. There is nothing more political than a political action committee lobbying the government, most of whom have obscure sources of funding. The biggest and most political SEAL of them all is Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL, who founded this group. He and his organization briefly made waves in the last Presidential election with political ads against President Obama. Taylor also ran for a Congressional seat in Virginia. (They also have an accuracy problem.)

- Special Operations Speaks. Special Operations Speaks’ website demands “accountability” for President Obama’s response to Benghazi and its masthead features at least one former SEAL demanding action.   

- SEAL Benjamin Smith. Another founder of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Ben Smith deserves his own section because of his role in circulating an email in conservative circles that had so many errors that Snopes debunked it. Read about it here.   

- SOF for America. This is yet another PAC and website using their military experience to lobby and campaign for conservative causes. Founded by a former Navy SEAL, this group explicitly backs Republican politicians to “take back control of the Senate”.

- Former Navy SEAL Christopher Mark Heben. He went on Fox News to denounce critics of Marcus Luttrell’s film Lone Survivor. Along the way he said, “Nobody who wears a trident...is a fan of Obama or Hillary.” That sounds political to us. And, according to Heben, it means that all SEALs are political.

- Former Navy SEAL Don Raso. In this NRA “Patriot Profile” as a part of the NRA’s “Life of Duty” series, former Navy SEALs describe their love of the NRA and how it helped them protect America. In this feature, former Navy SEAL Don Raso uses his personal experience at war to criticize Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

- Books. At least five books about or by Navy SEALs repeat the false claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, as we wrote about here.

- SEAL Gabriel Gomez. While not involved in the current war on terror, Gomez was a former SEAL who left active duty in 1996, but he ran for John Kerry’s vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts in 2014. He has been associated with the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund group described above, which specifically campaigns against President Obama.

- Father of sailor Michael Strange. The father of a sailor who conducted electronic intercept intelligence for the U.S. Navy--and frequently assigned to Navy SEAL teams--he sued the Secretary of Defense and blamed President Obama for killing his son. His son died in the Chinook helicopter crash in 2011 that killed 33 troops, the single largest loss of life in Afghanistan. You probably didn’t hear about this, but it made the rounds through the conservative blogosphere.

(Why didn’t we call Michael Strange a SEAL? Because frankly, we can’t tell if he is. Though his father repeatedly uses the phrase “SEAL” and let reporters/bloggers write that his son was a SEAL, multiple other reports don’t mention that he was a SEAL, and specifically do not classify him as a SEAL. We can’t tell what is the truth.)

- Navy SEALS Against Obama. This now defunct blog has a self-explanatory title.

- “The Shooter” in Esquire. This anonymous former SEAL has lobbied Congress for increased benefits and funding for special operations, using his veteran status to bolster his position.

- Of course, we’ll end with Marcus Luttrell’s memoir Lone Survivor. At its worst, the memoir Lone Survivor actually blames liberals for the deaths of SEALs during Operation Red Wings. If accusing a political party of killing soldiers isn’t politics, we don’t know what is. Marcus Luttrell semi-regularly appears on Glenn Beck’s show, recently attacking Obama for negotiating with the Taliban to free Bowe Bergdahl. (Luttrell also misuses the term “terrorist” which we wrote about here.)   

We don’t want anyone to think we are denying SEALs the right to engage in politics. Navy SEALs--especially retired SEALs no longer bound by decorum or UCMJ--can make their political viewpoints known. However, we don’t want SEALs describes themselves as “apolitical” when many SEALs are as vehemently political as any conservative radio host.

A better description of SEALs is that they engage with politics with the same gusto as most Americans. Some eschew politics; some love to talk it. What we can say, with certainty, is that among those vocal SEALs, they tend towards conservative or very, very conservative.

(Finally, why pick on SEALs and not Green Berets, Rangers or especially Delta Force? Because examples of uberly-vocal political Green Berets and D-boys are much, much harder to find. And they don’t describe themselves as apolitical either.)

May 13

(To read the entire “Quotes Behaving Badly” series, click here.)

Our readers could (somewhat fairly) accuse us of picking on conservatives on this blog. Many people--looking at our tagline of a veteran and a pacifist--assume we’re a conservative and a liberal, when we’re actually a moderate and socialist-liberal. We try not to espouse knee jerk liberal politics, but if we do talk politics, usually we debunk conservative rhetoric as it relates to the military.

But today we’re taking on the left wing of the political spectrum. Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on misusing quotes; liberals may abuse quotes more. While I was researching a Bertrand Russell misquote last week, I found Antiwar.com’s “Quote Page

And it’s a big ‘ol mess, the ultimate example of “Quotes Behaving Badly”.

If you know of any knee jerk anti-war quotes, they’re probably there. Want some examples?

Wisdom is better than weapons of war.” - Ecclesiastes 9:18.

The actual quote is “Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner can destroy much that is good.” They literally cut off half of the quote. And the quote comes from a passage about a poor, wise man failing to save a city from an attacking conquerer. Very disingenuous use of a quote. It literally means the opposite of what they quoted. Another example:

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” - Albert Einstein.

Three problems with this one. First, it is a paraphrase of this actual quote, “the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it." Second, Einstein said it referencing the thoughts of Pablo Casal, from whom he got the idea. The entire quote reads “He [Cassal] perceives very clearly that the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.” Finally, we’ve debunked this sentiment before.

Nothing good ever comes of violence.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Google says Martin Luther said it (You know the ex-Catholic priest who founded Lutheranism. Don’t feel bad; they get confused all the time.) instead of Martin Luther King Jr. Wikiquote has neither saying it.

After victory, you have more enemies.” - Cicero.

We couldn’t find a source for it anywhere...which makes us think it doesn’t exist.

Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” - Davy Crockett

Actually, Gerald Ford said this, though according to Wikiquote, similar things were said by Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. And if Davy Crockett has said this, at the time, he’d probably be opposing a standing (permanent) military, not business regulations.

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

War settles nothing.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Both of these quotes are a bastardization of a much longer, nuanced response Eisenhower made at a news conference, simplified to the point of absurdity. This also personally offends Michael C because he idolizes General/President Eisenhower’s nuanced and persuasive view of national security.

I could do this all day. But I’ll close with these two:

In war, truth is the first casualty.” - Aeschylus

The first casualty when war comes is the truth.” - Sen. Hiram Johnson

As we wrote here, this quote is all wrong. “The actual award goes to Sherwood Eddy and Kirby Page in The Abolition of War (1924). Second place goes to Samuel Johnson, who wrote “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.” This phrasing is not very quotable; neither is Samuel Johnson.

But more amazingly, they misquoted and misattributed the same quote on the same page twice. Twice! Twice! How is that even possible? And it’s a quote about truth! They literally misquoted a quote about truth twice on the same page. Gathering hundreds of anti-war quotes together on one page created a critical mass of inaccuracy.

This site illustrates the problem with collecting quotes as “proof” of something. They confirm knee jerk opinions that we already maintain. I read a few years ago about a study that said, answering the question of whether the internet is making people smarter or dumber, is that the answer is both. Some people are getting smarter, by researching, fact checking and visiting a variety of websites. Others are getting dumber, only looking for views that confirm what they already believe. Ideologists won’t fact check something they agree with.

Especially quotes.

May 09

(To read the entire “Quotes Behaving Badly” series, click here.)

So we go nearly two years without a “Quotes Behaving Badly” post because we couldn’t find enough quotes. Then, we find enough for three, so expect more quote debunking in the next few weeks. Without further ado, more “Quotes Behaving Badly”:

“A soldier will fight long and hard for a piece of ribbon.” - Napoleon

How has On Violence not tackled this mother of all quotes? I mean, we even used it way back in the day (while cautioning that we thought it was a “Quote Behaving Badly”). So has the Economist, The Marines Corps Gazette and countless other quote generators. Unfortunately, the closest we have seen to a reference is one book which places Napoleon on the H.M.S. Bellerophon on his way to exile. (Though, it doesn’t have a source for any of that. Wikiquote currently has it as unsourced.)

Most likely, Napoleon didn’t say this quote, but it would require a lot more research to find the first instance in popular language. It also captures why we dislike “Quotes Behaving Badly” so much. Sure, soldiers love to get ribbons and recognition. I don’t know an infantryman who doesn’t want a CIB. At the same time, soldiers fight even harder and longer for the men and women on their left and right.        

(We also want to give props to our favorite source for management thinking, Manager-Tools.com, for identifying a “quote behaving badly”. Mark Horstman has spent years quoting Napoleon saying, “Never prohibit that which you cannot prevent.” (This comes from his “Things I Think I Think” newsletter.) However, he rightly pointed out that, “Upon searching, I have discovered that the only [places] Google cites to this quote being from Napoleon relate back to...me. So I might be wrong.”)

“War is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.” - Talleyrand

More precisely, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the foreign minister of France who survived from the Ancien Regime to the Restoration, allegedly said this. I recently heard this in a class where a professor (rightfully) sang Talleyrand’s praises. However, the professor also included this quote, and as I do now whenever I hear any quote, I looked it up. Turns out, the quote comes from another diplomat, Clemenceau from after World War I. And the actual translation should be “to the military” instead of “military men”.

Remember the old Napoleon saying, “Don’t quote that which you can’t verify.” (Not a quote.)   

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” - Adolph Hitler

The above quote also goes by the variants “The great masses of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated again and again.” and “The bigger/more blatant a lie, the more people will believe it.” Variously attributed to Hitler or Goebbels, this quote is wrong on a number of levels.

First, both sides of the aisle regularly accuse the other party of using the big lie. For example, Glenn Beck, responding to Democrat accusations that Republicans were using the “big lie”, responded by saying that political tactics used by progressives were taken from the Nazi playbook. Awesome.

Second, it’s a misquote, a bastardization of what Hitler actually wrote. Like most quotes behaving badly, the mis-quote simplifies a much more complex thought. Read this full paragraph to understand Hitler’s true meaning:

“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

To clarify, Hitler is not endorsing the “Big Lie”, as I think most people assume when they read or repeat the quote above. He doesn’t believe that the big lie works; he thinks that the Jews fed Germans a big lie, but he (Hitler) saw through it. He’s not offering a blueprint for dictatorship; he’s justifying his anti-semitism. He’s justifying the mass extermination of the Jews.

Finally, I’m not sure whether this quote reflects reality or not. I mean, we once ran a post on how 40% of Americans believe Saddam didn’t have WMDs, another 30% believe he did and 25% don’t know. 9/11 conspiracy theorists still dominate corners of the internet. Maybe if you repeat something long enough, some people will believe it.

“War does not determine who is right--only who is left.” - Bertrand Russell

At some point, researching an On Violence post, I came across this perfect candidate for a “Quote Behaving Badly”. Instinctively, I knew Russell didn’t say this. He might have, but it just seems too simple a thought for one of the twentieth century’s greatest thinkers. No war actually kills every single person in a country, at least not since the Middle Ages.

According to Wikiquote--and some light On Violence research-- the accuracy of this quote is in dispute. As Wikiquote writes, “This has often been published as a quotation of Russell, when an author is given (e.g. in Quote Unquote — A HandBook of Quotation, 2005, p. 291), but without any sourced citations, and seems to have circulated as an anonymous proverb as early as 1932.”

Remember, if you can’t cite where or when the author said something, they probably didn’t say it. More importantly, journalism and academia only succeed if we can cite who said what (along with where and when they said it). Using quotations by citing some robo-site that says, “Einstein said it this,” is terrible reportage/scholarship.

What’s more interesting is where I found it, on Anti-war.com’s list of quotes.

This led to a whole rabbit hole we’ll go down next week...

Apr 25

Today, I’m going to defend Donald Rumsfeld.

Not as a politician, Secretary of Defense, or one of his many other job titles he has held since the 1970’s. Rumsfeld failed as a Secretary of Defense. If he were a Democrat, Republicans would have launched million Benghazi-type congressional hearings investigating how he mismanaged two wars and the military.

Instead, I’d like to defend a philosophical notion he thrust into the public sphere, the most (in)famous thing Rumsfeld ever said. On 12 February, 2002, Rumsfeld, answering a question at a Department of Defense news briefing, said…

“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

And cue the media, particularly liberals, using this quote as a talking-point-punchline. For the next couple of years, this became one of those far-left liberal memes, an example of the corruption and stupidity of the Bush administration. At the time, I was well-connected to liberal anti-war activists at my college, and I heard people mock this quote often.

Not that Rumsfeld ran from it. He titled his memoir Known and Unknown: A Memoir. Errol Morris, who I really respect as a documentarian, just released The Unknown Known, a documentary about Rumsfeld. I’m sure the documentary itself is terrific and informative, but Errol Morris, on the Colbert Report, had this exchange with Stephen Colbert:   

Colbert: “Your new film is called The Unknown Known, about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. What the hell does that mean? The unknown known? What is that?

Errol Morris: “Can I be completely honest with you?”

Colbert: “I hope you will”

Errol Morris: “I don’t know”

Really?

It’s not a simple thought, I’ll grant you that. But it is a true one. Trying to re-explain it, I can’t really shorten it any better than Rumsfeld did, except for maybe adding examples. So…

- “...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.” For example, most Americans know that America holds prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

- “We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.” For example, we know America used torture, but until the Senate report comes out, we really don’t know how far America or its allies went, or what concrete information it gave us. Another example: until last year, we knew the Intelligence Community had a budget; we just didn’t know the specific numbers.

- “But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.” Until last year, most Americans were completely unaware about most of the NSA activities, like spying on heads of state in foreign countries (including allies) and collecting meta-data on telephone and internet usage.

Makes sense? Especially for liberals and small government activists, the last point illustrates this concept perfectly, and why it matters: we didn’t know what we didn’t know about the NSA and its massive surveillance of Americans. But because it was Rumsfeld (mistakenly) arguing for Iraq’s connection to terrorists, this concept--not the argument itself--got the blame.

Errol Morris should have been able to answer Colbert’s question; he wrote a whole essay on the topic for the The New York Times in June 2010:

“I found myself still puzzled by the unknown unknowns. Finally, I came up with an explanation.  Using the expressions “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” is just a fancy — even pretentious — way of talking about questions and answers. A “known unknown” is a known question with an unknown answer.  I can ask the question: what is the melting point of beryllium?  I may not know the answer, but I can look it up. I can do some research. It may even be a question which no one knows the answer to. With an “unknown unknown,” I don’t even know what questions to ask, let alone how to answer those questions.”

Clearly, he’s thought a lot about it. (And the title to his film isn’t actually something Rumsfeld said; it’s something Morris made up.)

There’s a larger problem, an inconsistency in what the general public wants from our politicians versus what happens when they get that thing. We want politicians to be more honest, less guarded and, frankly, more intelligent. We want them to be more human. But if they do something human, like Scott Brown, on the podium during his victory speech, telling the crowd his daughters were single, the other side of the political spectrum calls it creepy. If they do something interesting, like going on Between Two Ferns to talk about healthcare, it’s not presidential. And if they say something intelligent, like Rumsfeld did, it’s mocked.

So we end up with politicians hiding behind rote, memorized talking points, saying nothing unique, original, authentic or insightful. And we only have ourselves to blame.

Apr 04

(To read the entire "COIN is Boring” series, please click here.)

Like any good, card-carrying liberal, I love The Daily Show. Though I love it as a whole, I hate it when Jon Stewart rails against the media without ever offering any alternatives.

Watching the show, you’d think the entire media was an endless parade of nonsensical blabber. You’d think that 95% of all Americans got their news from Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, when, at most, only three to five million people watch a cable news channel each night (which is less than 2% of the adult population). Jon Stewart doesn’t hold up other media outlets as beacons of informational enlightenment, never pointing his viewers in the direction of NPR, The PBS Newshour, The New Yorker or The Economist. (Or any number of very intelligently and fairly written blogs, like The Dish or 538.)

In short, he dishes out criticism instead of offering solutions.

Starting On Violence five years ago, Michael C and I came up with an unofficial list of guiding principles: have a take, don’t chase the news, don’t make predictions, and most importantly, “offer solutions”.

If I’m being intellectually honest, so far in my “COIN is Boring” series, I haven’t offered a single solution. I’ve bemoaned video games, board games, cable channels and Hollywood films without discussing what mediums could or have depicted contemporary counter-insurgencies well. Without further ado, COIN media that actually work...or could work:

Non-Fiction Books

When a skilled writer has over 200 pages to write about an insurgency, I think they can do the topic justice. Sure, they can’t cover every angle, detail or insurgent group, but they can convey the scope, complexity and emotional feel on an insurgency. Off the top of my head, I’d recommend Dispatches by Michael Herr, The Forever War by Dexter Filkins, Victory Point by Ed Darack or Fiasco by Tom Ricks.

Counterinsurgency is a lot of things in those books; boring is not one of them.

Blogs

Yeah, it’s a little self serving, but if you want to learn about counterinsurgencies, debate minutia, or read real life true stories, then the blogging world has you covered. Outside of the insanity of conservative milblogs, the blogging world can and does cover COIN very well. Check out our blogroll for a good idea of what to read. (We have a blogroll update coming soon, we promise).

(Just don’t criticize Clausewitz. He is a golden god.)

Novels

Wait, I haven’t reviewed the new novels about Iraq and Afghanistan yet? Dammit.

That said, if one medium could cover the scope of an insurgency, it’s the novel. A piece of long fiction can show the experience of either a soldier or an insurgent, and the balances that must be maintained among various sides in a conflict. I’m thinking of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, Eugene Burdick and William Lederer’s The Ugly American, and, unexpectedly enough, Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls as sterling examples. Still, we haven’t seen many novels by soldiers on the current wars yet...

They must have been blogging.

Photography

Have no doubt: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are some of the most photographed wars in history.  On the one hand, no picture can convey the depths of an insurgency. (You just don’t have the time to cover the scope of an insurgency in one thousand words.) That said, four photographers have won Pulitzers for photography from insurgencies since 9/11. That’s pretty good, in my opinion.

Or watch Syria, Egypt or Tunisia. Citizen photography and citizen reporting defines these civil wars and revolutions. We know about war crimes in Egypt and Syria because of cell phone cameras.

Documentary

If you look at the last ten years of Academy Award nominees for best documentary, you’ll find one subject more than any other: documentaries about counter-insurgencies, including three films on Iraq (Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience, Iraq in Fragments, and My Country, My Country) a film on Afghanistan (Restrepo), two films on the larger politics of Iraq and 9/11 (No End in Sight and Taxi to the Dark Side), and two films on Vietnam (The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and The Fog of War).

Though I had some issues with Restrepo, I think it offers a blueprint for making a film on a counter-insurgency: follow a group of soldiers or insurgents for an extended period of time.

Unlike fiction films, documentarians feel comfortable depicting the everyday existence of regular people, instead of having the plot lead up to one final, ultimate battle. (For example, Lone Survivor added a final battle that never happened. Oh, and its depiction of counter-insurgencies was abysmal.) Unlike fiction, non-fiction can use the stories of regular people to act as a microcosm for the larger conflict.

Could a film do this? Yes...but that film wouldn’t make money so it won’t get made.

A Cable Series or Miniseries

When I wrote about film and counterinsurgency, I made two points: 1. Films about insurgencies aren’t popular. 2. They don’t have the time.

But what if we gave them more time? I think that could work to depict an insurgency on the (small) screen. This hasn’t been done yet, but I have no doubt that a Wire-esque series on either Iraq, Afghanistan or the mountains of Pakistan could be critically acclaimed, if not popular. (Or as we wrote about last year, a multi-season cable drama about intelligence officials.) I think you could depict, one, two or three sides. In Iraq, watch the inner workings of Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups and the local government and the US military as each group struggles for power. Now that sounds intriguing…

Except The Wire wasn’t popular when HBO first aired it. And this series sounds expensive as hell, filming in a place that looks like Iraq or Afghanistan.

I guess COIN is just expensive.

Feb 05

(To read all of our Lone Survivor posts, please click here. The most important post is "A List of the Mistakes and Differences Between Lone Survivor (Film), Lone Survivor (Book) and Reality" so read that first if you are new to the blog or this topic.)

As you may have noticed if you’ve been reading the blog the last couple of weeks, we’ve switched topics. We’re putting Lone Survivor on hold for right now--frankly, we’re tired of writing about just that subject; you’re probably tired of reading about it--and switched to the Edward Snowden NSA leaks. This is a topic we feel very, very passionate about, especially since Michael C worked as an intelligence analyst.

It’s not because we don’t have more things to say about Lone Survivor. We do. (We have like six other posts, including Eric C’s take on the film’s inaccuracies and why they matter, diving into the issue of who wrote the book, and so on.) When the DVD comes out, or during Oscar week, we’ll hit some of those topics again, to finish the subject. (Also, writing about Lone Survivor, we’ve had at least two or three other tips come our way for things to investigate, so we want to dedicate our time to some of those.)

Before we go, though, we have some updates to our posts on Lone Survivor. Mainly, we’ve updated the posts “The Worst Media Coverage of Lone Survivor (film and memoir) and “A List of the Mistakes and Differences Between Lone Survivor (Film), Lone Survivor (Book) and Reality”.

We’ve added the following sections to each post:

Media coverage:

NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday

PBS’ Charlie Rose

Star-Telegram’s “The Big Mac Blog”

Mistakes and differences:

Ahmad Shah’s Missing Earlobes

Who Stumbled Upon Luttrell?

Did the SEALs Have Rope?

What Type of Sidearm did the SEALs Use? And Why Was it Changed?

A final thought. You might be wondering, why didn’t you add Fox News to the media post? They did like six or seven segments on Lone Survivor the week after the film came out, blasting the film's critics.

First off, they weren’t talking about us. Their main targets were the LA Weekly, Salon and Atlantic Monthly i.e. “liberal bloggers” who questioned the film’s patriotism or called it “propaganda”. They never contacted us or mentioned the blog. Or the very popular article (at least more popular than the Slate or Atlantic Monthly blog posts) we wrote for Slate. Nor did Fox News mention any other veteran writers who questioned the film’s facts. If you read the post from two weeks ago, you know at least three other veterans wrote about the inaccuracies in Lone Survivor. It was easier for them to go after “liberals” who questioned the film’s patriotism than veterans questioning the film’s facts.

We’ve really enjoyed the positive feedback on our efforts to correct the record about Operation Red Wings. Continue to spread the word to friends, families (and journalists if you know any).

Jan 10

(Normally, we start the year with our “Most Intriguing Event of the Year”. But since Lone Survivor hits theaters across the country today, we’re devoting this week to that topic.

To read all of our Lone Survivor posts, please click here. The most important post is "A List of the Mistakes and Differences Between Lone Survivor (Film), Lone Survivor (Book) and Reality" so read that first if you are new to the blog or this topic.)

In the last week, almost every major news source has published something about Lone Survivor (film). The majority of these reviews or making-of stories relied on promotional material provided by the production. Some of the stories coupled the promotional material with the chance to interview Marcus Luttrell, Peter Berg, Mark Wahlberg or some other stars.

The incredible lack of journalistic curiosity has, obviously, disappointed us, along with the absence of fact-checking. But a few news outlets that we hold to a bit higher standard have really gone above and beyond in journalistic malpractice. If any of these sources had bothered to look up a single detail using either the U.S. Navy’s official documents, Ed Darack’s research or Marcus Luttrell’s memoir, they would have found the answers (or contrary accounts) to their questions.

(For nearly every mistake or correction, head over to our huge list here.)

To help clear up the record, here is our fact checking of the media reports around Lone Survivor (film and memoir):

ABC News

Men’s Journal

The Los Angeles Times

Associated Press by way of NPR, The Washington Post and Salon

60 Minutes

HBO Original Documentaries, Will of the Warrior

NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday

PBS’ Charlie Rose

Star-Telegram’s “The Big Mac Blog”

 

ABC News:

On ABC’s This Week, journalist Bob Woodruff asked a series of leading questions without challenging any of the responses. Many of the questions seem designed to mislead the viewer.

WOODRUFF: Ahmad Shah was right in your sight. Why didn't you shoot him, was it because you weren't getting a order?

LUTRELL: Right. Yes, sir.

“WOODRUFF: What are the rules of engagement?

LUTTRELL: Who knows?

WOODRUFF: You mean it just depends on where you are? You make the decision yourself.

WOODRUFF: There isn't an official protocol that was...

WAHLBERG: I was shocked even yesterday, finding out that, while we have these rules of engagement that are kind of constantly changing, nobody else does. Nobody else has to answer to any of that.

WOODRUFF (voice-over): With the vote, the SEALs let the herders go…

A whole bunch of corrections here:

Correction 1: Luttrell didn’t shoot Shah because that wasn’t the intention of the mission. As we recently updated our list of differences and mistakes, the SEAL team’s mission was never to shoot Shah. They were deliberately only a reconnaissance unit whose mission was to get eyes on Shah. A larger team of SEALs and marines was the lead element in the mission. (This fact was almost completely neglected in the movie’s briefing scene as well.)

Further, Luttrell never mentions in the memoir actually spotting Shah, as is portrayed in the film. Thus, either the film or the memoir is wrong. (We tend to think the film embellished the detail.)

Correction 2: There was no vote. This fact is in dispute between Luttrell and Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy’s family. Based on Luttrell’s various contradictory statements, we cannot establish what actually happened. (We can, however, say that no media outlet has actually asked Luttrell why his story changed on this very sensitive topic.)

Correction 3: Rules of engagement do NOT change mission to mission and every other country has rules of engagement. While there are legitimate criticisms about ROE, these statements are both completely false and inflammatory. Every country signed to the Geneva Conventions--including every ally America has in NATO--has ROE. Further, rules of engagement do not change mission to mission, and the leaders in Afghanistan tend to update them on an annual basis. Meanwhile these changes have always maintained soldier’s right to self-defense while adhering to the laws of land warfare. Further, the laws of land warfare are a topic taught to every soldier in basic training, every officer in their initial training, and a subject trained on by every unit before they deploy.

Men’s Journal:

In an article praising Lone Survivor for its dedication to realism and accuracy, reporter Stayton Bonner included this line:

“The film recounts the two-hour firefight that pitted Luttrell's team against some 100 armed Taliban fighters.”

Correction: As we’ve written about, Luttrell and his fellow SEALs weren’t attacked by 100 men. Based on Ed Darack’s analysis, including video footage, the actual number was around 8-10 fighters. Even the U.S. Navy’s Medal of Honor Official Citation only counts 30-40 fighters. Either number is a far cry from 100 insurgents. (Or the 200 insurgents Luttrell has referenced in speeches.)

NBC News:

NBC News has featured the Luttrell story twice. They first had Marcus Luttrell on the Today Show in 2007 when his memoir hit shelves. They recently updated their reporting, again on the Today Show, this time interviewing Gulab alongside. One exchange sticks out, starting at minute 1:55:

Kate Snow: “In the end, you voted to let them go.”

Marcus Luttrell: “Yeah I did... [pause]...Yeah, that’s what we did...”

KS: “Do you regret the decision [to let the goatherders go]?”

ML: “No.”

Correction 1: There was no vote. See above for the explanation.

Correction 2: Marcus Luttrell deeply regretted letting the goatherders go in his memoir. If anything, the memoir if filled with regret (page 206). Luttrell clearly said he regretted the decision to release the goatherders, a fact he first repeated on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, where Lauer read his words back to him from Lone Survivor (memoir).

The Los Angeles Times:

On Violence’s favorite “banter buddy” from the KCRW podcast The Business (we legitimately enjoy his work), John Horn, interviewed Luttrell for his paper. Here’s the most egregious section:

“It was more than a little hard for Luttrell to recount his ordeal in print. "I didn't want to write the book. I'm a private person," he said of his memoir, co-written by Patrick Robinson. He was compelled to pen it, he said, by his superiors.

"It was the Navy's idea, not mine," the 38-year-old Luttrell said. "They felt the story needed to be set straight."

His commanding officers were equally assertive in recommending that he support a movie adaptation, which opened to solid reviews in New York and Los Angeles on Friday before expanding into national release Jan. 10.

"I didn't want to do a movie," Luttrell said. "But Hollywood was going to do it with or without us. That's what came across the wire."

Correction 1: The U.S. Navy cannot compel you to write a book. Besides being outside the scope of his job duty, the U.S. Navy actually prefers to have its sailors not publish books. Further, the Special Operations community publicly says it discourages its troops from writing books. In this rare case, his command probably did support his writing, but that’s still a far cry from compelling someone to write it.

Correction 2: Marcus Luttrell wanted to write Lone Survivor (memoir). He did. In repeated interviews, he said that he personally wanted to set the record straight. Further, there was a significant monetary incentive to publish a memoir. (He signed a seven figure book deal which likely included participation in the film’s success.)

When the Lone Survivor memoir came out four years ago, Luttrell told the The New York Times about why he wanted to write the book on his own volition, which contradicts the quotes he gave to John Horn:   

“Mr. Luttrell, 31, first started thinking of writing a book because he was frustrated by media accounts of the battle...

“So he talked to his Navy superiors, hired a lawyer and searched for a writer…

“Little, Brown won it in an auction for a seven-figure advance...”

Correction 3: Hollywood was NOT going to make Lone Survivor without Luttrell’s involvement. Absolutely not. As a long time Hollywood watcher--and someone incredibly well versed in film production and marketing--Horn should know that first and foremost Hollywood cannot make a movie without someone’s book or life rights. Further, Lone Survivor (film) consistently struggled to find film financing, and eventually turned to two individuals with ties to organized crime and cocaine trafficking to make the film. Finally, Lone Survivor (film) also only happened because of Peter Berg’s desire to see it made. In fact, to even distribute it, Universal required Berg to first helm Battleship. Arguably, if Luttrell had refused to support a movie by not giving his rights and refusing to do publicity, it never would have happened.

This is also evidenced by the extreme lack of Hollywood films about Afghanistan. With the release of Lone Survivor, the number of films about the war in Afghanistan jumps to...1, Lone Survivor. To sum, Hollywood would not have made this film but for Marcus Luttrell, Little/Brown and Peter Berg fighting to make it happen.

Associated Press by way of NPR, The Washington Post and Salon:

An AP article by Jake Coyle deserves mention for an uncritical look at the Department of Defense’s role in supporting Hollywood films. Coyle’s article made it onto NPR, Salon and The Washington Post:

“Luttrell would rather not talk about any of it. He went along with "Lone Survivor" and wrote the book at the urging of his superiors...

For films like ‘Black Hawk Down’ and ‘Lone Survivor,’ the commonality is the notion that this is an important opportunity to set the record straight or at least to portray things as they believe they happened,” says Philip Strub, head of the Defense Department’s Film and Television Liaison Office.

It can make for a thorny mix of fictionalization, artist license and classification issues. Berg consulted frequently with military liaisons and the Navy Office of Information while writing the script.

“I read the after-action reports,” says Berg. “I looked at the autopsies. I went to Iraq. I met all these guys. We just followed the blue print that Latrell laid out in his book. We never set out to do something non-Hollywood or Hollywood. We just literally told the story.”

Correction 1: Luttrell wanted to write Lone Survivor (memoir). See the above correction.

60 Minutes:

When we wrote about Marcus Luttrell’s 60 Minutes’ interview last month in “Luttrell No Longer Stands By his Mistakes: Lone Survivor vs. the 60 Minutes Interview”, we were so gobsmacked by that fact that Luttrell completely changed his story that we didn’t call out 60 Minutes for failing to ask any hard questions about the changes in Luttrell’s story.

But put this interview next to the Benghazi story...or the NSA story...or the Susan Rice profile...or the Jose Rodriguez interview from last year...well, you get the idea. Frankly, we think 60 Minutes is incapable of doing a story that’s critical of the national security establishment.

HBO Original Documentaries, Will of the Warrior:

Last week, HBO aired a documentary, Will of the Warrior, about Marcus Luttrell and Lone Survivor. A couple of inaccuracies stand out:

Correction 1: The documentary included an interview with Billy Shelton, an Army veteran who lied to Luttrell about his service and the number of tours he did in Vietnam.

Correction 2: The documentary includes archival footage of Luttrell’s interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show incorrecting stating how many enemy attacked the SEALs.

NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday

Longtime On Violence readers know that we love NPR. We link to them all the time. Unfortunately, Weekend Edition Sunday host Rachel Martin really stumbled when she interviewed Marcus Luttrell a couple weeks ago. Luttrell told Rachel Martin:

MARCUS LUTTRELL: We did have an uneasy feeling, going in. The intel on the numbers kept changing. And then when we got overrun, it was such a large force that - the numbers have been speculated, anywhere from 60 to 80, to 80 to over 100. And it was all of that. I have recently talked to one of the villagers who saved my life. And he was in constant contact with the Taliban. And he says that there was over 100. I'm sticking with the latter, from 60 to 80.

Correction: The SEALs were NOT attacked by 60, 80 or 100 fighters. Not that we have to rehash it, but find out more here.

The good news is that one question did have an interesting answer about Lone Survivor (film) changing the facts:

“MARCUS LUTTRELL: ...but I didn't kill anybody with a knife. And I remember sitting back and laughing. I go why did you put that in there? What does that have to do with anything? I mean, the story itself, I think, is enough to where you wouldn't have to embellish anything."

We agree, Marcus. We agree.

PBS’ Charlie Rose

Wow, there’s a lot of bad in this interview, which is unfortunate, because we like public media. But, man, the version of the story Luttrell tells Charlie Rose, well, it contradicts the movie, his book and reality. Here are the quotes:

Once the book came out and did what it did, then obviously Hollywood came knocking on the door. And it was one of those situations...an ultimatum was basically dropped on us, saying we’re going do this movie with or without y’all. So you can be a part of it and help us out to make sure it’s as authentic as possible, or you can let us go with what we think is right.” (minute 6:00)

Our mission was a special reconnaissance sniper overwatch intent. We were sent out to capture/kill a high ranking individual in bin Laden’s army. Had his own militia at his disposal. Conventional forces had been chasing him for probably about two years. Finally they slid him across our desk.” (minute 12:00)

We would have rather gotten into an engagement with 200 taliban militia than to get it wrong in that situation.” (minute 14:00)

“Shah killed twenty marines last week. Twenty.” Matt Axelson, from Lone Survivor (Clip from the film, minute 22:00)

This is not a vote.” Mike Murphy, from Lone Survivor (Clip from the film, minute 22:00)

Correction 1: Hollywood CAN’T make a movie without your life rights if you're not famous. And as we mentioned above, this film wasn’t a slam dunk. Universal clearly delayed this project for years, because of the failure of other war films. Without Luttrell’s support--especially making himself available for publicity--Hollywood would not have made this film. Even if a producer made the movie without Luttrell’s rights, they couldn’t use the name Lone Survivor, which was the most marketable part of the book. Maybe Luttrell’s book contract stipulated that the publisher could sell the films rights, but that’s not “Hollywood” demanding to make a movie and delivering an ultimatum.

Correction 2: Ahmad Shah was NOT affiliated with al Qaeda. The “bin Laden’s army” part has irritated us since the book was released, because calling al Qaeda an “army” dramatically overstates their capabilities.

Correction 3: The marines were in charge of this mission. They didn’t “slide a paper” across their desk. It was a joint operation between two branches, specifically for access to the air support that Special Operations forces used.

Correction 4: The SEALs were not attacked by “200 taliban militia”. What more can we say about this one? Oh, I know: it contradicts the account Luttrell gave to NPR above.

Correction 5: 20 marines were not killed by Shah the week before the mission.

Correction 6: As far as the vote goes, that contradicts the memoir. We wish Charlie Rose would have followed up on this.

Star-Telegram’s “The Big Mac Blog”

Not only does this interview have misleading information, but Luttrell tees off on some political subjects. Here are some select quotes:

“I’ve run over 300 combat missions in my career, a lot worse than Red Wing. We didn’t take as many casualties.”

"They think I got out, wrote the book, and that’s not it. The book was the idea of the military’s. I was in Iraq when it was on Amazon. I was doing what I was told."

“Who makes up the rules of engagement? I have no idea.”

Correction 1: It’s “Operation Red Wings”. Like the hockey team.

Correction 2: The military can’t make you write a memoir.

Correction 3: Not a correction as much as a statement of fact: the top officer in charge decides on Rules of Engagement under advisement from his staff. Luttrell might not know this, but he should.

[Update February 7th, 2014: We’ve updated this post to add in other examples from NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday, PBS’s Charlie Rose, and The Star-Telegram.]

Dec 30

(To read all of our Lone Survivor posts, please click here. The most important post is "A List of the Mistakes and Differences Between Lone Survivor (Film), Lone Survivor (Book) and Reality" so read that first if you are new to the blog or this topic.)

I (Eric C) saw the film Lone Survivor a few weeks ago at a special screening hosted by “The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith”. (Goldsmith, who also publishes an e-magazine on screenwriting called Backstory, regularly hosts screenings for upcoming films with screenwriters panels afterward. If you want to work in the film industry, this is a must-listen podcast. If you live in Los Angeles, you should be on the email list.)

Near the end of the question and answer session (also available on iTunes), Peter Berg told the audience:

“I’m sure there are murmurs...There are people who hated the book in the SEAL community, in the military community. There’s people who hate Marcus Luttrell. Not a lot of them. But go online, it’s all there. The beautiful internet. Everybody gets keyboard courage, and says all kinds of things.” (minute 1:22:00 on the podcast)

Which is funny, because Peter Berg followed those keyboard-courage-endowed haters’ advice almost to a T.

By haters, I’m referring, of course, to Michael C and myself, who, along with Ed Darack, have led the effort to correct the historical record on Operation Red Wings. I doubt that Peter Berg expected one of those haters to be in the audience...or to take a picture with him after the screening.

Mostly, I don’t get why Peter Berg mocked us when he agreed with everything we wrote. The Lone Survivor film is good for all the reasons that the Lone Survivor memoir is bad. Peter Berg is a good filmmaker, so he avoided all the mistakes Luttrell and Robinson made when they wrote the memoir. Frankly, I hope they watch the film to realize how they should have written the book.

So what does the Lone Survivor film not do?

1. Politics. Our biggest problem with Lone Survivor (memoir) wasn’t its inaccuracies; it was with its politics. The book is endlessly political, and explicitly and repeatedly blames liberals and the media for the deaths of every Navy SEAL that day. What does Peter Berg think of politics?

There was an active decision to not politicize it...I did not want to make a film that created political discussion over a discussion about who these men were.” (minute 1:11:00)

Unlike the book, in Lone Survivor (film) there are no WMDs or al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, no mentions of George W. Bush, no politics, either liberal or conservative. And it’s a better film for it.

2. Rules of Engagement. Yes, in a crucial scene in the middle of Lone Survivor (film), the SEALs debate the Rules of Engagement, but those ROEs aren’t vilified the way Luttrell vilifies them in his memoir. The discussion is balanced and even-handed, with two characters debating their options. Good art asks questions instead of giving answers.

Lone Survivor (film) asks questions; Lone Survivor (book) gives answers.

3. The Vote. A few weeks ago, Roberto commented on the site:

“Further, some of the things you claim to be false are highly speculative such as the “vote” contraversy. [sic] Im aware that its not customary for battlefield decisions to be subject to democracy but this isnt your everyday military unit and to suggest you have insight into their methodology based off of, well frankly nothing, makes you seem a little pretentious. Im [sic] aware other SEALs have also criticized this claim but again, exigent circumstances can lead to breaking SOPs and the main point is: no one but those 4 men were there.”

Fair enough, Roberto, but what about that fact that in the book Marcus Luttrell clearly writes, “The deciding vote was mine and it will haunt me till they rest me in an east Texas grave. Mikey nodded, ‘I guess that’s two votes to one...’” (pg. 207) and in the film no vote takes place? As Peter Berg said in the Q&A, “Mike Murphy made that decision. There wasn’t a vote.” (minute 00:54:00)

4. The Writing. The writing in Lone Survivor (memoir) is terrible. And I mean terrible. We did post after post after post on it. It’s uninteresting and cliched.

Peter Berg let the actors improvise their dialogue until they found something good. I’m not going to pretend like it’s perfect, (One character's wife wants a horse. Awww!) but it’s a million times more competent than the writing in the book. Most importantly, no characters memorize crosswords in their head.   

5. Pacing. In the memoir, way too much time is spent away from the action, discussing Iraq, training, the home front, political rants. Lone Survivor (film) pares all this down into one tight, brutal story. It’s about the mission and only the mission...just like the book should have been.

5. The Inaccuracies. According to the question and answer session after the screening, Peter Berg believes that Luttrell choose him to tell his story was because of the meticulous amount of research he does before every film. And in doing that research, Berg (must have) learned a few things, like...the actual name of the mission, the actual size of the group attacking the SEALs, who Ahmad Shah actually was, etc.

Peter Berg cut those inaccuracies from the film. (I mean, not the Ahmad Shah thing, but still, he cut a lot of the inaccuracies out.) We’ll dive into the other changes from the film to the memoir later this week.

So yes, some people on the internet may have keyboard courage. But as Lone Survivor (film) proves, sometimes they’re right.

You’re welcome.