Where Are You, Dale Dye?

Damn contractors!
--Col. Trautman
(Rambo: First Blood II)

You tell 'em I'm coming...
and hell's coming with me
--Tombstone (2003)

Murdock... I'm coming to get you!
--Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
________________

Sometimes real life seems as unreal as the movies, or is it that the spin is as fantastic as a trailer for a Spielberg film?

The regrettable recent deaths of 30 servicemen -- 22 of whom were SEALs -- and the speedy subsequent dispatch of the supposed bomber would make for a delectable silver screen meal. The only problem is, if this were a movie Ranger would say, "NO WAY!" As with much of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), the plot line is hackneyed at best, improbable at worst. No basic Infantryman would use a Chinook to assault an unsecured LZ, and surely never without aerial rocket artillery supplying suppressing fire.

However, if the recent shoot down of the Army National Guard Chinook in Afghanistan were to become a film, former Marine Captain and consultant to the stars Dale Dye would probably enter the picture, for it is Dye's job to make movies realistic from a military perspective. As mentioned, this would be a tall order, as the action doesn't exactly ring true to military standard operating procedures.

But if Mr. Dye applied his military eye for the Hollywood guy to this action, Ranger would predict the following amendments to the script:

• The fact that the purported RPG shooter who brought down the copter was killed so quickly is a scene out of Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), and should be deleted in the name of redundancy.

• Ditto the scene in which the SEALs are killed rescuing pinned down Rangers, as that was done in Black Hawk Down (2001).

Using a Chinook for a combat assault needs to be deleted because no basic Infantryman would expose such a bird to fire on an unsecured LZ, and surely never without aerial rocket artillery supplying suppressing fire. This scene needs to go both in the interest of redundancy and military realities.

As the press develops this story, there will be more inconsistencies, but since we so easily suspend our disbelief for films like Saving Private Ryan, Jarhead, Windtalkers, Platoon, Apocalypse Now! and Hurt Locker, it is a small step to believe without question the soundness of the scenarios flowing out of Hollywood East, which is another name for the Department of Defense briefing room.

But if It's True. . .

But your flag decal won’t get you into Heaven anymore,
We’re already overcrowded from your dirty little war
Now Jesus don’t like killin’
No matter what the reasons for.
And your flag decal won’t get you into Heaven anymore
--Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven, John Prine

_________

According to VFW magazine (October), "Beginning this fall, four movies that show Iraq soldiers in a negative light will be released."

The VFW incorrectly states these movies show Iraq soldiers in a negative light. In fact, they depict the soldiers and their lives in a realistic light. If it is unpleasant to view, many things in life are. When did the word "negative" supersede "truthful", when discussing unpleasantries?

"In the Valley of Elah's. . .'uplifting' theme tells of the murder of an Iraq vet by fellow soldiers.

"Tinseltown is not at all reluctant about releasing these films while the war is still underway."

And why should they be? This is America, and no OPSEC is being compromised. You can get more information on the war any day of the week online at Wikipedia.

Ranger saw the above mentioned movie and was impressed with its treatment of the war. The main character, his son, and his deceased son (killed in the 82nd) were all portrayed as dedicated soldiers who loved their country and their Army. So how is this anti-War?

The protagonist calls Iraq a "shit-hole," and of course, he is right. The war was backdrop to the story line, and it was dealt with fairly and clearly. The dialog was devoid of value judgments on the war, so how is depicting one family's experience in and surrounding their service anti-war?

It may be anti- their candy-colored version which marches in lockstep with the administration, but as Winston Churchill said, "the truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

In the conclusion, the U.S. flag is flown with the field down, to symbolize the nation's distress. To many of us observing and participating, the nation is in an undeniable state of emergency that needs to be fixed. The bleeding must be staunched. This is not anti-war; this is fact.

Since PTSD, drunkenness and domestic violence are facts of life for many returning combat soldiers, how is their portrayal anti-war? When did facts, albeit unsavory ones, become "anti-war"? It is what it is.

In fact, if the Elah movie were anti-war, the VFW should applaud it. Needless, senseless wars should be protested, and who better than veterans themselves to do so?

The concluding paragraph is a non-sequitur. It begins by quoting from film critic Lew Harris, "Hollywood's much more political now and less afraid to speak out. The filmmakers and actors themselves are far more politicized than they were in the 1960's." It concludes,

"This explains why, despite all the bravery displayed by GIs in Afghanistan and Iraq, no movies are about to be released that highlight the heroism of Americans."

How does one's honest depiction of a true (or fictionalized) situation equate with being gratuitously "anti-war"?

The facts speak for themselves. These depictions lack a saccharine overlay telling the audience how they should feel (presumably, according to the VFW, great about whatever happens), which in itself would be a form of propagandizing. There is no bouncing ball for the audience to follow patriotic tunes stitched in to the story. That is propaganda.

True--our GIs have displayed great bravery in theatre, and heroism is a daily occurrence. Elah does not deny this fact. It merely refuses to wave little flags and be wrapped in a yellow ribbon. It dares to show the underbelly wrought by all of that heroism.

Sometimes, you just don't feel good about the things you see and hear. Maybe that is o.k., and in fact, necessary in order for right action to occur. In our over-medicalized, over-prescribed and over-pathologized society, we are told that feeling bad is not good. Sometimes, feeling bad is your warning that something must be changed.

It is time for us fat, dumb and happy old soldiers at home to display the same virtues by opposing the needless sacrifice and slaughter of our young generation of soldiers. Our sworn oath demands it.

As a Ranger, my vow is to never leave a soldier behind.

--Jim and Lisa