A Must See Movie

Rating: 8/10 (1 March 2004)

While this movie is very contrived and unrealistic it is a "must see" because it shows that officers must make very hard decisions in combat which are necessary for them to complete their missions. Ironically this movie was made before 9/11 and the Iraq War yet our troops are now constantly being put in positions where terrorists are using innocent civilians as shields.
The story is about a Marine Colonel who is put in such a position. Being a retired Marine officer and a combat veteran who participated in many court martials and who became a lawyer after retirement, I understand the point of the movie but I also see how unrealistic it is. When I was an officer candidate, I went through a screening interview where I was asked what I would do in various combat situations. One involved women and children. If the candidate's final answer was that he would not kill them, he failed the course and was not commissioned. The Marines were looking for officers who could make the hard decisions necessary to successfully complete their missions.	Later I had to make one of those hard decisions on the battlefield. Fortunately, it did not involve innocent civilians but people had to die because of it. I had to throw away the book and that is what Col Childers had to do when he was a lieutenant in Viet Nam when he killed the radioman. While that scene was unrealistic because killing the radioman would never have caused the Vietnamese Colonel to stop the battle, it illustrated that sometimes it is necessary to throw the book away in order to save the lives of your troops.
The court-martial was a farce. While the movie showed viewers how court martials are formed, it was otherwise bad fiction. To begin with no general court martial is going to trial two weeks after charges are served on the accused. Another movie "High Crimes" does the same thing. There is a long pre-trial investigation and hearing in which the accused is represented by counsel. Secondly, Col. Hodges, the defense lawyer would never have taken the photos in Yemen by himself because he cannot testify about the photos at trial. He would have had another person do the photos who could testify at the trial as to their authenticity and as to what they showed.
Samuel Jackson is a very credible actor in this film.