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
I started to watch it, but couldn’t stomach. There is a smarmy, all-knowing special snowflake narrator who set the tone.
Sounds like a really stupid movie.
Brad Pitt? Was Pee Wee Herman not available?
I thought I tossed Brad Pitt some change on a street corner the other day.
It might have been Leo Dicaprio - libtards all look alike to me....
Sounds a little like “Catch 22”.
Brad Pitt??? since when does a ‘snowflake’ like him have any brains??? I wouldn’t waste the money or the time to watch anything this jackass has to say or do...
And he hasn’t been in the service in REAL LIFE, nor has he been a GENERAL IN REAL LIFE so how the crap would he know what goes on...play acting is a whole lot different than being there in REAL LIFE WITH REAL BULETTS COMING AT YOU...such a stupid dork idiot!!!
I purposely avoid Brad Pitt films.
Wow.
I don’t know if Pitt is good in this movie or not. I haven’t seen it. But most actors have not been soldiers or generals and yet we have had some good war movies with some great performances by actors.
If a film is a war documentary, then yes, they should get people who were really there and served in some capacity.
Only because we REFUSED to fight it the proper way. Thanks duh-bya, you weak c--t of a fool. And I won't even get into what the POS after him did.
I don’t care to see another one these types of movies. Seen enough.
Stupid movie or not,
It’s even more stupid for US to be there...we don’t appear to be winning Hearts n minds.
Thousands of US soldiers dead, thousands more wounded soldiers, tens of thousands of dead dark Muslim enemies, that are ever more determined to hate us perceiving our best intentions there as a 14 year long foreign invasion.
It’s time to stop supporting an enormously corrupt Muslim president, and stop using our soldiers to guard “cash crop” Heroin Poppy fields.
Bring our soldiers home to guard our borders.
And heed founding fathers warnings to Avoid Foreign Entanglements.
Afghan soldier wounds 7 US soldiers in insider attack
Today
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — An Afghan soldier opened fire on American soldiers on Saturday, injuring at least seven, the U.S. military said. It was the second such insider attack by an Afghan soldier in the past week.
(Snip)
Last week three U.S. soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.
No and why would I want to?
Peter Maass is a journalist of lefty note writing in a dubious source The Intercept
I mean....really?
It was a very bad movie. I think it was a comedy and I didn’t find any of it funny. Stopped watching about 15 minutes from the end.
I agree. The troops have to be given the authority to win the war. This doesn't appear to have been given since WW2.
The only person I thought was good in War Movies was John Wayne, course he was great in any movie he was in...
What we have now days is garbage, and they wonder why we won’t spend money to see the trash...
I’ve seen it. It was okay, not bad but not that good. The point the movie seems to be trying to make is that the Afghanistan war (as it is currently being fought) is not winnable. Personally, I don’t disagree with that.
Pitt is basically playing the same character he did in “Inglorious Basterds”, except that he is a Four-star general here. The movie is clearly based on the events leading up to the firing of General McChrystal. It is also not very complementary toward Obama. I thought the whole thing ended too abruptly. There was also no good explanation for why Pitt’s character let the Rolling Stone report have the access he did.
“he hasn’t been in the service in REAL LIFE, nor has he been a GENERAL IN REAL LIFE so how the crap would he know what goes on...”
How? Probably the same way you do. Probably the same way Bradley Cooper the actor snowflake played SEAL Chris Kyle in American sniper. Probably the way Mark Walberg played a SEAL. Probably the same way George C Scott played Patton, the same way Gary Cooper played Sgt York.
The truth is, Brad Pitt is quite typical of a modern US General. His mid 50s age is just right. He isn’t very bright but is obviously very ambitious about the workings of his industry. He maintains his body very well, achieving that hobby runner combined with an MBA look. Looks great in an Arrow shirt. Hooks up sexually with coworkers. And has almost no understanding of warfare. Ergo, Brad Pitt is a dead ringer for a modern General. Put a stick up his azz and he would be an Admiral, make him gay and he would be USAF.
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.