The Hollywood Left even used political correctness and a little revisionist history when filming "Bat-21." The incident was true but the Air Force Cessna 0-2 in the move was actually a Marine Corps OV-10 Bronco and the black Air Force pilot you see flying the Cessna 0-2 was actually a black Marine Corps Captain, Larry Fletcher Potts (RIP and Semper Fi Capt. Potts) who was assigned to my old unit, Sub Unit One, 1st ANGLICO.
For the sake of discussion, what amounts to a war film? How much emphasis must be placed on the engagement in order to qualify? Does the film Captain America, produced by Marvel Studios, constitute a war film? Can a film be considered a war film if tale does not involve militaries engaged in combat, but rather focuses on police and civilians involved in conflict with violent and organized criminals? If not, where is the difference drawn between war and crime?
I did not learn much about Ike's views on Viet Nam. I know that both Truman and Ike tried to contain the Communists world wide. JFK and LBJ made the same mistakes of expansionism in Viet Nam. Neither JFK nor LBJ was very smart strategically, unfortunately.
That's probably why I never had "fun" during a firefight. Mine were never offensive then were always defensive and always came via an unexpected ambush. So it went from casually patrolling around singing random songs in my head all day to "oh ****" in a split second. Being in a defensive position where you know you have total control is a bit different. Actually I take that back, I do remember one time where I did have fun which was when we got attacked from a multi story building under construction and our extremely irritated Platoon Sergeant who, in his terms, "is getting sick of this bullshit", told us to return fire with ANYTHING we had. So I opened the door of the truck and grabbed my 203 grenade launcher and lobbed a few grenades in the window lol. I guess that would count as fun because for one I knew they weren't shooting at me specifically they were shooting at the Afghan Army who was advancing on them from the other direction, and two I'd never shot the 203 before in combat so I was giggly that they let me do it. The other times though...naw...no fun. I was scared as hell and the only thing keeping me from showing it was the fact that I knew that if I showed fear then my guys would surely freak out so I had to stand tall and tap into quite a bit of bravado to keep my guys from panicking.
Crush and Bolt hasn't worked in literally any war since WW1 ended. The ability for insurgents to simply blend into the population is too effective.
Yes it has. When Reagan bombed Libya in 1986. Most "Crush and Bolt" wars that America has fought were punitive actions. Over 100 of them. Didn't President Trump conduct a punitive action bombing of a Syrian military airfield just recently ?
Re both VN and Korea there was a lot more at stake than just those two little countries, there were still issues in Europe, and demonstrating a will to contain Communist imperialism was necessary in both cases; we were putting emphasis on building coalitions and it was critically important to show that the U.S. had the ability and the will to stand up and back allies, and not just when it was convenient and only to our benefit. It was as much about Europe as it was about SEATO allies. There aren't many times when there are clear 'good' choices, most of the time all the options are bad, and you go with what is the least bad option. Korea drove a wedge between Mao and Stalin, one that lasted for a long while, through Khrushchev and his protege Brezhnev's regimes, for instance, and for all the whining about LBJ, he had no one in the military command or the state dept. or CIA that wasn't constantly lying through their teeth about the facts on the ground, not to mention if he had dared to violate any agreements by taking the war into Laos Republicans and northeastern Democrats would have used that as a pretext to impeach or charge him with war crimes, so when sniveling about his management of the war just remember the roles domestic politics played in that. In the event his policies pretty much crushed the VC as a major player in the south within 3 years, the Tet offensive finished them off, and the rest of the war the north had to violate international laws and agreements, not the U.S. JFK wouldn't have done any better, and neither would have Goldwater. the civil war was the South's to win or lose in the long run; Congress settled that for them when it cut them off in 1975. Invading China would have been great for MacArthur's ego and maybe his Presidential aspirations, but such a large long term commitment of our forces would have left Europe and the ME stripped and vulnerable, and running around throwing nukes at every problem would have just led the other nuclear powers to do the same, nothing to gain there, either. Calling them all 'mistakes' is gross over-simplification of the strategic problems involved.
It was a little different from the usual fare put out, one of the few that showed the VC in a negative light instead of the U.S., for one, and a different plot line from the usual fare of VN films. I don't expect war movies to be documentaries, some are made for propaganda, some are entertainment, others are just movies. It wasn't a 'war movie' per se, but I also liked Air America with Mel Gibson; it was more in line with my experiences overseas, except the movie was a lot more exciting, and the little bush planes they used for landing on mountain strips was fairly accurate.
Gaddafi did not stop supporting terrorism after 1986. And that punitive action in Syria did exactly what?
In the US any soldier has the right and the duty under Oath to refuse any order that violates the federal Constitution. Although doing so opens up a whole can of worms for him/herself. As to morality, once one voluntarily enlists in the military, he/she tosses any sense of morality out the window. The Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) is more or less based on morals but it isn't necessarily the same thing. Morality is after all, in the eyes of the beholder. As to US war films, many are Hollywood based propaganda, some using CIA or Pentagon direction.
It is tough to keep a level head when you hear the cracks. I was just a fresh boot when I was down range. I had awesome NCOs though and they were tough mother F-ers. One of my squad leaders saw a rouge enemy combatant. The enemy panicked and fired at him. Squad leader paused, realized that the IBA caught the bullet, and proceeded to.... you know
Back to the OP: Zero Dark Thirty was a really cool look at our newest wars. Intelligence, satellites, relationships with countries that harbor terrorism (Saudi Arabia). It's really interesting.
Love war films. All Quiet on the Western Front (the original 1920s version) Apocalypse Now The Thin Red Line Full Metal Jacket
Gaddafi stopped supporting terrorism back in 2003 and became an American ally on defeating the jihadist. Remember Reagan's Bombing of Libya In 1986? It Shut Gaddafi Up For 13 Years
No it didn't. Gaddafi STILL supported terrorism around the world after Reagan's supposed "crush and bolt".
I watch a lot of war movies except one's dealing with Vietnam. WWII, my favorite is "The Longest Day," "Tora, Tora, Tora," is also right up there. Korean War, "Pork Chop Hill." I would recommend "A Bridge too Far," if Operation Market Garden appeals to you. Come to think of it, I really haven't watched any of the newer war movies, from Vietnam to Desert Storm to this new one about Benghazi. Now some dealing with the cold war are also pretty good. "Fail Safe," with Henry Fonda and the "Bedford Incident," with Richard Widmark. As to your questions, No and No.
Some of these probably don't qualify as war films, but they are war time films. Schindler's List The Piano Player Anthropoid The Great Escape The Deer Hunter Escape From Sobibor Enemy at the Gates Two Women
You seem not to understand what "Crush and Bolt" and punitive actions are. Example: The four primary wars that nations wage are Punitive (to punish); Protective; Pacification and Profiteering.
The "Bedford Incident" was a pretty good Cold War movie.. "If he fires one, I'll fire one." The butter bar Ensign hears the destroyer's captain saying "fire one" and ****s up big time and launches an ASROC. The Soviet submarine detects that the American destroyer had just launched an ASROC and fires a nuclear tip torpedo at the destroyer.
Many of these Cold War movies like "Fail Safe", "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Bedford Incident" the inevitable happened. You and I both grew up during the Cold War, We remember the Cuban Missile crisis, Bert the Turtle and "dock and cover" and staring at Susie Rotten Crotch panties during duck and cover drills in the class room. And we remember all of the proxy wars that come with a cold war, the Vietnam War just being one of the 76 proxy wars waged during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars#Cold_War_proxy_wars That's why I can't understand why Obama, Hillary, liberals and progressives and a few neocons like McCain and Lindsey Graham restarted the Cold War (Cold War ll) President candidate Donald Trump made it clear what his strategy would be to end Cold War ll, the same strategy that President Reagan used to win and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union, detente. But obstructionist, seditionist (The Resistance) who had a meltdown on the evening of November 6th, 2016 have pretty much ended any possibility of detente with Russia. Lets hope there isn't any inevitable like a real "Fail Safe." "Dr. Strangelove" or a "Bedford Incident."
The UCMJ specifically addresses unlawful orders. Unfortunately, taking a bridge is not an unlawful order. If you're not willing to be in the fight, you shouldn't be in the military, as you're both useless and dangerous to everyone around you.