Posted on 06/17/2017 2:17:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
How do military leaders persuade their soldiers to fight an insane war?
Here’s one way. The setting is a bitter outpost of the American war in Afghanistan. The years-long nightmare has no prospect of ending so long as American troops stay in a country that has a nearly unblemished record of grinding foreign armies to ashes. A bullish general is trying to generate a dose of enthusiasm in the hearts and minds of his unenthusiastic men.
“You boys,” the general says, “are the only things that count. If it doesn’t happen here, it doesn’t happen. End of story.”
“What doesn’t happen, sir?” a Marine asks.
“It, son,” the general responds.
The Marine knows it would be unwise to demand a full explanation.
“Okay, thank you sir.”
The general, who doesn’t know better, bulls ahead.
“Does anyone here know what it is?” he asks.
Silence.
“Anyone? Anyone?”
This scene is familiar to me — I heard similar calls and responses while covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and at the same time this scene is utterly invented. It comes from the just-released “War Machine,” which is one of the best war movies of the post-9/11 era, yet has been panned by movie critics who know everything about basic cable and nothing about basic training. While the movie is uneven in content and performances (let us resolve that Brad Pitt will never again play a general), it achieves greatness in the way it uses absurdity to assassinate the logic and reality of counterinsurgency warfare.
But you wouldn’t know the movie’s strengths if you read the reviews. “War Machine” has a 56 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has been largely dismissed by film critics whose closest encounter with a warzone is the bar at Balthazar on a Saturday night. They don’t like it because, as one wrote, there is an “absence of intimacy, of psychology, of characters’ self-revelation in thought and desire.” Yes, that particular reviewer graduated from Princeton with a degree in comparative literature, so there you go.
There is one particular group of people who love the film, and we should pay more attention to them, because in the matter of war movies they are the experts who matter the most: soldiers. They now have more skin in the game than usual, after President Trump gave Secretary of Defense James Mattis a green light to send more soldiers into Afghanistan. Helene Cooper, a military correspondent for The New York Times, noted in a podcast the other day that “everybody at the Pentagon is talking about” the movie, and she added, “the guys who you think would be offended by it, love it.” Retired Gen. David Barno wrote with co-author Nora Bensahel that it “should be must-see TV for our current generals and all those who aspire to wear stars.”
SNIP
OH B.S.!!!
“Only because we REFUSED to fight it the proper way.”
No, it wasn’t because we didn’t do it right. The USSR of old went in there and didn’t tame that place. You think we could outdo the Soviets in brutality? Not a chance. Or maybe you think we are so decent, so good, so smart that we could have turned the Afghan people into a modern decent people?
Neither is possible. No tactic, force level or weapon will “win” Afghanistan.
John Wayne wasn’t in any wars that I know of.
And like it or not, Brad Pitt is perfect to portray a modern US General.
“OH B.S.!!!”
Come on, use your words...
Saw it, hated it.
The only way to “win” there (what exactly is “winning” there?) is how Alexander the Great won, after many years. He destroyed every village, killed every person and animal and burned them to the ground. Eventually the most powerful “king” swore loyalty and he married the king’s daughter. Then he left and they went back to killing each other.
Americans would never countenance that kind of war. Our best strategy would be to pick tribal leaders to support against their enemies. That how we won initially, by supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. We will never impose a national government there, because the people are loyal to their tribe first, and will never support a government over tribe.
FWIW, I spent 7 months in Afghanistan in 2007. I concluded we would need to stay for 100 years to change the culture...and it would be easier just to destroy them any time they caused us problems.
People leave Afghanistan for the same reason: Why stay?
However, I’ve never heard a general talk the way quoted in the original post. A quote from someone opposing the general:
“You have devoted your entire life, general, to the fighting of war, and this situation in Afghanistan for you is the culmination of all your years of training, all your years of ambition. This is the great moment of your life. It is understandable to me that you should have therefor a fetish for completion, to make your moment glorious.”
I retired in 2008, but I never met a general like the one they describe - and I met and worked for a number of generals. The Colonel I worked for in 2007 was on his FOURTH tour already. He was a damned smart officer. And yes, he cared deeply about his men.
The author of the article?
“Peter Maass has written about war, media, and national security for The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He reported on both civilians and combatants during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Me?
I just spent 25+ years in, about half of it deployed overseas. Peter Maass thinks it is a realistic movie, in part because:
“The skewering of this type of general is a timely corrective, because we live in an era of general worship, thanks in part to our general-loving president...Our delusional leaders finally have the movie their insanity deserves.”
I’m more inclined to believe this Trump-hating New York Times reporter is the delusional one.
Sounds like a true story. Obviously you never met Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, and numerous others......So yes I think they portrayed the Generals accurate if you use these mentioned clowns.
Haven’t seen it, but that exchange about “it” would have been fantastic with that big blowhard who played the occasionally visiting general in the classic early years of M*A*S*H — by which I mean the years it was downright hilarious thanks to Larry Gelbart. The actor who played the general escapes me, but he was PERFECT in that part.
Brad Spitt, wasn't he set back two grades in acting sckool?
“Brad Pitt’s “War Machine” Offers an Absurd and Scathing Critique of America’s Delusional Generals”
Truth be told, what it offers is a chemical-free alternative to Sominex. Probably the worst film I’ve seen (the first 10 minutes of) all year.
On the whole you are right,but I'd like to add a twist. Actually, I think we did win. The main reason we went in was to punish the Taliban and Al Qaeda for 9/11, gets some intelligence on those people and make them think twice.
The mistake was in trying "nation building." We stayed too long and wound up in this mire.
I didn't finish the movie, it was depressing. It did give a reasonable depiction, I think, of the type of general that Obama would have picked to continue the fiasco: a well-intentioned, narcissistic, relentless, ambitious, ribbon-grasping, inspiring, but unquestioningly loyal go-getter. Despite some of these being in negative traits, combined they add up to a talent-- necessary in a real conflict or in training for future trouble, but wasted along with hundreds of others.
Hell no! I honestly believe the Soviets couldn't finish the job because they fought it half-assed because of Western scrutiny. I would go and Kill every one of those boy rapers, ANNIHILATE the cities, NO rules of engagement, and let the women take over when/after we tidy up. We can "Marshall Plan Lite" the place, but pisslam is verboten, and we supervise things for, say 15 years. And NO news media allowed.
By my timetable that means 1 year to carry out the ass kicking, plus 1-5 years to rebuild, and 10 to supervise...We'd still be out of that craphole ahead.
Wasn’t able to watch more than about 20 minutes of it.
It's in my queue. Looks interesting. Trying to find the time.
“What doesn’t happen, sir?” a Marine asks.
“It, son,” the general responds.
The Marine knows it would be unwise to demand a full explanation.
“Okay, thank you sir.”
The general, who doesn’t know better, bulls ahead.
“Does anyone here know what it is?” he asks.
Silence.
“Anyone? Anyone?”
Given the responses I'm seeing on this thread, I wonder how many people here can really appreciate just how on-the-nose this interaction is?
Re-watching “Firebase Gloria” now.
Just missed Nam myself, but it seems like what the guys experienced- at times.
Don’t think I’ll be watching a movie that has a correspondent’s viewpoint. What would be the point?
I started it but found it condescending to the men in uniform. Hollywood types.....
Wifey likes Bradley and I like Army stuff, so we tried to watch it.
After a few minutes we both decided it was unwatchable.
(Odd, since I bought the DVD `Fury’ and enjoy it bigly.)
Not sure what he was trying to do with `War Machine’ but life’s too short to try and figure it out.
Yes, it is horrid.
The narrator is the Rolling Stone reporter who brings the general down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.