as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood doesn't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions . 
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) . 
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges' life by shooting an unarmed pow . 
that's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances . 
certainly hodges is not complaining . 
years pass . 
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer . 
childers , is now a respected and much-decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould . 
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops . 
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command . 
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd . 
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down . 
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians . 
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film . 
did childers violate authorized u . s . military rules of engagement ? 
or are there simply no rules in war ? 
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions . 
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s . where is the accusations from the arab leaders ? 
where is the u . n . ? 
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ? 
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism . 
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair . 
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking . 
one of the earliest apparent problems with 'rules of engagement' is its lack of credibility . 
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed . 
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality . 
that is precisely why it's not offensive . 
it is completely unobjective . 
many stories are started and never finished . 
many questions are asked , but never answered . 
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing . 
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film . 
is it about arab mentality ? 
america's foreign policies ? 
america's role in the world ? 
corruption in the higher circles ? 
it goes on and on . 
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot . 
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one . 
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film . 
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film . 
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage . 
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed . 
it's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe . 
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict . 
even the actors can not save this film from going under . 
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of . 
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back . 
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting . 
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks . 
the time has come for the verdict . 
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty . 
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty . 
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it's inconclusive and often silly plot that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population . 
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad-guys . 
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth . 
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states . 
and that it's not a coincidence that u . s . residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .