Navy SEAL from "Lone Survivor" Sets This Journalist Straight on What It Means to Protect America

Movie critics have called “Lone Survivor” the best war-time movie since “Saving Private Ryan.”

The film — based on the true story of Navy SEALs on a mission in Afghanistan — caused CNN’s Jake Tapper to question the operation that took the lives of 19 men. The Navy SEALs were tasked to capture or kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah when an unexpected event forced them into a deadly situation.

During a tense interview with former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell and Mark Wahlberg, who plays Luttrell in the movie, Tapper questioned if the lives of the 19 men were lost “senselessly.” Luttrell responded with an answer you’ll want to watch beginning at 1:15 in the clip.

Jake Tapper: One of the emotions I felt while watching was, first of all, the hopelessness of the situation, how horrific it was. And I was torn about the message of the film in the same way that I think I am about the war in Afghanistan itself. I don’t want any more senseless American death.

Marcus Luttrell: I don’t know what part of the film you were watching, but hopelessness never really came into it. Where did you see that? We never felt like we were hopelessly lost or anything like that. We never gave up. We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.

Tapper: It seemed senseless. I don’t mean to disrespect in any way, but it seemed senseless — all of these wonderful people who were killed for an op that went wrong.

Luttrell: We spend our whole lives training to defending this country, and then we were sent over there by this country. So you’re telling me because we were over there doing what we were told by our country, that it was senseless? And my guys, what? They died for nothing?

Luttrell: That’s what you said. So, let me just say, it went bad for us over there, but that was our job. That’s what we did. We didn’t complain about it.

You have been offensive and abusive in your posts.

Unbelievable. You write poorly. If that's abusive, so be it.

You asserted "people should shut up"; I challenged you on telling me I should just shut up. If that's abusive, so be it.

You suggested I was 'drinking & posting'. I took that as satire. If I were an a$$ I'd call that abuse. I'm not.

Frankly, I'm tear-ing up laughing. I already stated 'we're on the same side' and you're still ripping me down after writing 'fini' twice.

Tell you what: "I'M" going to go have a drink now and ignore your last comment. Anything further will be considered abuse. Good luck to you. (sincerely)

(and if I get banned because I engaged you in discussion, well...that would simply be pathetic. But I wouldn't be surprised if half the planet were drinking today)

Luttrell and his teammates believed that was a righteous mission. Luttrell was the sole survivior. DO you think his team members think that they died in vain to assure Luttrell’s survival? I don’t.

This is all from the tactical standpoint, and I agree with you. From the strategic level up to the national policy level, can this all be justified? Those guys (and thousands of others in Iraq and Afghanistan) have died for....what, exactly? We withdrew from Iraq and AQ is taking over major cities. It's so bad there that numbskulls are even talking about training Iraqi military in Jordan. My memory's a bit hazy, but didn't we just spend about 10 years doing exactly that? Why would it work this time? How much will it cost, how long will it go on?

Afghanistan is descending further and further into chaos. Karzai hasn't been an ally in years, if he ever was. Those people have been doing their thing for thousands of years--what can we offer them?

Having seen up close how these people live and think, I don't believe we were fighting for freedom. Islam is antithetical to freedom. Were we fighting for our freedom? Hardly. We're more of a police state now than ever.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we take a real close look at our policy as a nation and ensure that we are engaging an enemy with an actual purpose in mind. Such demands don't impugn the individuals who fought and died, but it does call shame upon those who put us in that position to begin with. Of course, the problem there is attempting to shame the shameless. Not gonna happen.

Hey, upchuck: Sorry your thread got poisoned.

I resisted commenting the first time this the Tapper video came up; I should have just kept my metaphorical mouth shut.

Luttrell's response was 100% on target & Tapper was unusually incompetent. Not defending him, but I'd wager he didn't have creative control. But...whatever. Interesting thread at the link below. Among the comments:

Jake Tapper defends tense interview with ‘Lone Survivor’ Marcus Luttrell

Sean Parnell @SeanParnellUSA

@jaketapper asked a question I hear all the time from civilians. @MarcusLuttrell answered like a true warrior should. #BridgetheGap

@SeanParnellUSA @MarcusLuttrell that's why I aired it, though I knew it was uncomfortable – to shine a light on that disconnect—
Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 11, 2014

@jaketapper Convos like that need to happen a thousand times a day, everyday until America understands what our warriors have been through.—
Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) January 11, 2014

BTW, I agree with you that at some point further deaths are in vain if the tactics being used by our “leaders” no longer advance the strategic cause and I think we have reached that point in Afghanistan. But Luttrell’s mission was in 2005 where the strategy being employed was to take the offensive against a growing and dangerous threat that had been killing Americans with impunity for decades. Did that offensive save American lives form attacks by jihadists? I think they did.

Should President Bush have sent forces to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks?

I'll bite 'cause I feel very strongly about it.

1. Yes.

2. BUT Bush shouldn't have caved to pressure to go 'regular'; it should have remained SOCOM with air support. We didn't even need the 'coalition'; ISAF...what a joke. It brought us ER-ROE, ya know. (absolutely no offense to the Brits et al on the ground)

(Pakistan & CIA drones are a whole other discussion.)

We're now repeating history. How pathetic is that?

IMHO, not having these hard conversations permit it to happen again. After all, Bama's now in-process routing out Generals & appointing those that will follow his bidding...

I think there is no question that the tactics and ROE used in Afghanistan were less than optimal. But the strategy of taking the fight to the jihadists was the correct one following 9/11 and a whole host of other attacks. The author claims that Luttrell is wrong when Luttrell says his team members deaths were not in vain. He bases this on his political opinion that entry into Afghanistan was wrong. I reject that out of hand and so does Luttrell so who is the author to declare Luttrell wrong based on their differing politics? To me the author referenced by future snake eater is simply using Luttrell’s team to make a political point that does not make true his assertion that Luttrell’s team members died in vain chasing jihadists 4 years after 9/11.

You did your job. This country, especially our politicians did not have your back. For some reason politicians cannot seem to equate that foreign policy and rules of engagement have anything to do with results. Thank you for your service.

In my opinion we should never go to war unless we are willing to go all out and win. None of this political correctness, don’t shoot until they shoot, none of that. If we have to go to war, go fight to win, and come home.

I have seen the movie and I think everyone over 18 should see it. I saw very brave men giving their all for the mission they were sent to do.

I am embarrassed that our country tied their hands behind their backs when we sent them with the rules they were expected to follow. The goat herders had a sat. phone so were obviously affiliated with the Taliban. The SEALS should have been able to treat them as enemy combatants, armed or not. There are such a thing as enemy spies and we used to understand that. I am also embarrassed that communications for the SEALS were so poor- the plane they were in contact with left, why was it not replaced by another? Why did it seem there were not enough helicopters available when needed? Support needed for the mission seemed to be lacking.

I do not think the men that died did so in vain, or needlessly. They did their job, and then some. I have a lot of pride in men like that who serve to protect all of us. I think our country needs to do the right thing when we send people to fight, make sure they have the support they need and do not take political correctness to war.

Let’s start here: Should President Bush have sent forces to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, preferably with a scorched-earth policy.

Were the American lives lost in the Korean War in vain?

I honestly don't know enough about that war to pontificate in any meaningful way.

WW2?

Absolutely. There's no question we were fighting pure evil on both fronts, and we weren't playing nice with either side like we do now.

Do the tactics used or not used by our leaders determine the righteousness of the strategic cause?

Do the ends justify the means? No. Go in to destroy the enemy. Use diplomacy and rebuilding organizations where necessary, realize when/if they can be used (hint: it won't work in Muslim countries).

But the strategy of taking the fight to the jihadists was the correct one following 9/11...

We're in agreement on that, but your 'but' suggests we're not. I simply don't agree with repeating a failed strategy. The Russians weren't the first to fail in Afghanistan.

SOF have unique capabilities in that environment, but it clashes greatly with regular force military doctrine. Everything changed after it was ramped-up.

What sort of nation allows such ridiculous “debate” in a blown field operation?

One that doesn't allow its soldiers to win? I have read about scenarios such as soldiers not being able to shoot at someone who just fired at them without first checking to make sure the shooter didn't put his rifle down. And other situations such as:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/Soldiers-On-The-Ground-Obama-s-Rules-Of-Engagement-Are-Costing-U-S-Lives-In-Afgahnistan

(Sorry, can't figure out how to make live link)

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.