The Sole Survivor

[jcustis]

I've had the book in my queue for some time, and finally cracked it open this weekend. I'm about 100+ pages in, and to be honest, already pissed off.

I understand that this book is written for a specific audience, but I'm having a tough time coming to grips with the fact that one of our supposedly best-trained special ops warriors would write such ignorant babble about our ROE, where it originates, and the purported "fear" it creates in every young servicemember. Give me a break...

After I read that particular passage, I skipped ahead and read up on the communal "decision" about the compromise. Seems Luttrell (remember, in my opinion) was setting this issue up throughout the whole first part of the book, with the repetition about mortal danger, fanatic jihadists, and "fighting for each other".

If this is Luttrell's true point of view, then I sense some sort of disconnect between a SEAL's "high level of training" and the application of that training. I'll be up front that I have my prejudices, as I have watched team members shooting in live fire (with horrible marksmanship), watched small unit leaders brief a poor MEU-level mission plan, and knew the same embarked element to be compromised twice due to poor fieldcraft. I don't drink the Kool-Aid I guess, even though I wouldn't dare mess with a SEAL in the water.

Does the book (please don't drop a spoiler) at least get better further along?

[Ken White]

on about all counts plus a little. Pinnipeds should probably stay real close to large bodies of water, they can really dangerous there; too far away, not so much -- though ya gotta give 'em credit for testicular fortitude if not super competence ashore...

[Jim Rodgers]

I'm about 100+ pages in, and to be honest, already pissed off....

I understand that this book is written for a specific audience, but I'm having a tough time coming to grips with the fact that one of our supposedly best-trained special ops warriors would write such ignorant babble about our ROE, where it originates, and the purported "fear" it creates in every young servicemember. Give me a break...

Seems Luttrell (remember, in my opinion) was setting this issue up throughout the whole first part of the book, with the repetition about mortal danger, fanatic jihadists, and "fighting for each other"....

If this is Luttrell's true point of view, ...

I haven't read the book, nor will I. I have relatively little to add to the previous comments, and the big issues that have been raised have been addressed by others better than I could, but just to put one more perspective out there -

Luttrell's co-author, Patrick Robinson, is a bit out there. I read a few of his books back when I was spending a lot of time stuck at airports (anyone who travels much in the US has probably seen his stuff on display), and as time went by, they went from moderately entertraining, Clancy'ish thrillers focused on SEAL and sub ops, to sort of a combination of war porn and right wing blog posts.

It should be noted that the last book I read addressed a semi-coup by the US military due to the anemic response of the newly elected, radical left wing US President in the face of a threat. Said threat was a plot by a renegade SAS operator and his wife, a beautiful female radical Islamist named Shakira, to destroy the eastern seaboard of the US by launching cruise missles into a volcano in the Atlantic ocean. The science actually made more sense than the plot.

Perhaps more relevantly - in another of his books, SEALS kill a couple of civilians who stumble onto their hide site.

I'm a bit embarrassed to be admitting to reading this stuff, but in my defense, they didn't start out like that. I actually threw the last one away, and I NEVER throw books away.

None of this is a defense of Luttrell. He's a big boy, his name is on it, and he did the media tour thing. I just think that there are likely to be multiple agendas in that book. And that Patrick Robinson might not have been the best choice in ghost writers.

[jcustis]

Well now, that was very illuminating. Sort of like the back story behind Shooter. Thanks for that.

[William F. Owen]

Luttrell's co-author, Patrick Robinson, is a bit out there. I read a few of his books back when I was spending a lot of time stuck at airports (anyone who travels much in the US has probably seen his stuff on display), and as time went by, they went from moderately entertraining, Clancy'ish thrillers focused on SEAL and sub ops, to sort of a combination of war porn and right wing blog posts.

AhA! I knew I knew the name. Robinson and I have the same UK editor (- back when Random House published my novel! )

My guess is that Luttrell asked for him, but I am guessing, so who knows. Robinson has written creditable non-fiction.

[MattC86]

Just wanted to echo what Jim Rodgers said about Robinson. He co-wrote Sandy Woodward's excellent account of commanding the Falklands task force in 1982 (One Hundred Days), and his first couple novels; Nimitz Class and Kilo Class were typical Clancy-like stuff.

But I picked up one of his books a year or so ago at a used book sale, and "war porn and right wing blog post" sums it up perfectly. He's gone completely nuts in his recent writing.

You throw in the co-author's perspective, plus always keeping in mind who the book was written for (Terror in the Mountains! Good Vs Evil! All that kind of crap), and while it doesn't change the facts of the book - I have not nor intend to read it - it can very much influence how the story is told. . .

Regards,

Matt

[Abu Buckwheat]

I re-read the book last night on my flight OCONUS just so I could refresh my memory about what it was that made some of Lutrell's decisions and discussion points worry me. Now that I know about his crazy ghost writer, Patrick Robinson, it seems clear but still very worrisome.

This worry led to my previous posts on the issue of recalibrating our sense of honor and perhaps the reeducation of our young warriors as to who we are morally and what we fight for… hell, even our OLD warriors appear to have a problem on this matter. I'll take up in another thread why the author and ghostwriter decided the ambush was actually the fault of American liberals and the media.

On page 167 he complained that the ROE in Afghanistan was that they “could not shoot, injure or kill civilians.” Surely his view was influenced by the trauma that ensued. He also asked what should he do about “the unarmed civilian who was a skilled spy for the illegal forces”, or “enemies “pretending to be civilians.” Again I am reminded of the MARSOC post-IED massacre in Jalalabad ‘if something bad happens to us, everyone nearby must be in on it, so therefore everyone gets shot.’ Its an attitude that does not serve us well.

To him, there were no innocent civilians in that part of Afghanistan. This belief reflects poorly on whatever training or intelligence he received about who he was fighting in relation to what we are trying to achieve. The mission is to destroy Talib/AQ, but not at the cost of alienating the province. There are plenty of real enemy to be killed in Afghanistan but by the reckoning in this book EVERYONE was that enemy … which is strange because his experience of [SPOILER ALERT] being taken in by sympathetic villagers, surrounded by Taliban, directly contradicts that. It was a great example of the more human aspects of the local human terrain.

The most stunning assertion in the whole book was his insistence that the “correct” military decision, when compromised by civilians, is to kill them. He states this no less than four times starting on page 202 “the military decision was clear” or “[not killing them] was military suicide” (pg 203), “the military decision was obvious” (pg 205), blames others for not executing them “when every codebook ever written had taught me otherwise.” My first question was “WTF!? What is he talking about?” I taught Geneva Convention at SERE and prisoner handling and interrogation to numerous SEAL platoons deploying to OEF and OIF. SEALs are often the best, most attentive students, especially officers and Chiefs –they are all pretty smart. This question of 'can you kill the prisoner once you’ve interrogated them?' always comes up in a tongue & cheek manner and the answer is always the same “Sorry. No. 5-Ss (silence, secure, segregate, speed, safeguard) or leave them” You can zip tie them, leave them and extract or continue mission.

Is there something going on we don’t know? Is the TV show “24” or movies like “Blackhawk Down” the 'military codebooks' that say shooting civilians is doctrinal? Or is it the crazy ghostwriter talking tough? I have read allot of books about special operations going back to Roger's Rangers and I cannot think of one where killing civilians was an objective critical to “military necessity” to meet the mission ... except for Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now!

People get killed in crossfire and off-target effects, but what Lutrell discusses is the execution of civilians as a military policy and how he should have done it. Perhaps some have confused Mil-Porn books like Robinson's with actual Field Manuals? Or is this a matter of our soldiers talking themselves into what they would do in a rite of passage they think all “hard” soldiers get put into and convince themselves they are supposed to “do whatever it takes”? The latter belief is more popular than I’d like to think.

In the first Gulf War many SR missions deep in Iraq were performed and a quarter of them were compromised by the usual suspects - kids and goats, including the BRAVO 2-0 mission. In one, an SF ODA had a little girl walk right up and peered right into the hide. They grabbed her, rejected the thought of killing her, gave her candy to keep her quiet and called for an amazing extraction under intense fire.

“Lone Survivor” was a good read but he should have let Dick Couch ghost write it for him. My fear is that unless some high level SEAL like SOCCOM C.O. Admiral Eric Olsson resets the “moral hard deck” and forcefully points out that this concept is flat out wrong, not written or unwritten in any manual and that Lt. Murphy made the right choice.

If not, then this book will join that pantheon of mythological military “codebooks” where the reader, maybe new recruits, comes away swearing that he will not fail the test of what to do with three woodcutters. Standing orders to bring four zip ties, a half roll of duct tape and five tabs of 12 hour sleep medicine per operator wouldn’t hurt either.

Lutrell is brave, tough and a Navy Cross awardee. I thank God he survived. However, the book’s contention, over and over, that you have to kill civilians may become another equally bad piece of mythology alongside my personal bugaboo, Jack Bauer.

[jcustis]

Senior Chief,

Your words put my thoughts into a framework better than I think my own mind could, and that is exactly what I was trying to get at. I don't want to denigrate Luttrell's service or the mission, but I suppose it is the "mil-porn" effect that is giving me the problem.

People get killed in crossfire and off-target effects, but what Lutrell discusses is the execution of civilians as a military policy and how he should have done it. Perhaps some have confused Mil-Porn books like Robinson's with actual Field Manuals? Or is this a matter of our soldiers talking themselves into what they would do in a rite of passage they think all “hard” soldiers get put into and convince themselves they are supposed to “do whatever it takes”? The latter belief is more popular than I’d like to think.

This is the I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six mentality that crops us (especially over at the board you used to frequent a lot ) that drives me up the wall. I think you are on to something about this unwritten code or FM confusion among our young men. I've heard that tone from young and older though, enlisted and officer alike, and I am beginning to see that maybe Louie L'Amour books are the better choice for some of them.

[selil]

I don't know... maybe we have a new concept for the military literary pantheon, "The Lutrrell effect" where blaming the yellow bellied liberals while not understanding the rules of engagement can be used to excuse mission excess blathering after the fact.

Rest in peace for all others who were lost to the fickle hand of fate there is no dishonor in service regardless of who wrote the book after the fact.

[William F. Owen]

If not, then this book will join that pantheon of mythological military “codebooks” where the reader, maybe new recruits, comes away swearing that he will not fail the test of what to do with three woodcutters. Standing orders to bring four zip ties, a half roll of duct tape and five tabs of 12 hour sleep medicine per operator wouldn’t hurt either.

Aye to all that. This actually speaks to the damage popular military accounts can do, if not balanced against facts, context, and solid training. What we get to read is what will sell, not the operational de-brief!


...and Jack Bauer is a twat.

[Ken White]

view of Murphy...

LINK

[VMI_Marine]

I understand that this book is written for a specific audience, but I'm having a tough time coming to grips with the fact that one of our supposedly best-trained special ops warriors would write such ignorant babble about our ROE, where it originates, and the purported "fear" it creates in every young servicemember. Give me a break...

This pisses me off to no end - I have discussed this with Herschel Smith of the Captain's Journal on a couple of occasions before giving up on ever convincing him that the Theater ROE allows plenty of latitude for engaging enemy combatants; whether they are holding a weapon, a cell phone, or a shovel. Part of this stems from the problem of having JAG officers give ROE classes. The last ROE class I sat on was given by a JAG type, and the vignettes at the end were colossally bad, and in no way related to ANGLICO's mission of employing supporting arms. I gave my team another ROE class, using my own vignettes to illustrate the concepts. The rest I think stems from the exact sort of cultural influences that Abu Buckwheat and others have mentioned. The Haditha Marines are a great example - while I don't think their actions constitute war crimes, and I agree with the dismissal of charges, their method of clearing the houses was inappropriate to the situation, and caused unnecessary civilian casualties. We absolutely need to stress the idea of protecting civilians.