It Could Never Happen


Most of the key plot points in this movie would never happen in real life.

1. US Embassies are routinely prostested by crowds in excess of 10,000 protestors/rioters without being evacuated. The idea of a crowd less than 300 forcing an evacuation is ridiculous.
2. The crowd would have been dispersesd, easily, by the use of copious amounts of CS (tear gas).
3. If the Marines did actually evacuate the embassy, everything on Post 1 (command and control post in the embassy) would have been inventoried. This includes all weapons, log books and VIDEO TAPES! In fact, Marines being Marines, probably would have copied the tape as soon as the got back to the LHA and watched it that evening.
4. In addition to the video tape, the events of the day would have been recorded in the Post Log, which is a legal document. Meaning that the tape would not be the only piece of evidence that proved the crowd was armed and hostile.
5. The radio recording that lead to the “Well, if you got it on tape then I guess I said it” scene could not have happened. The A/N PRC-119 radios that they were using have a maximum range of 5-7 miles. Well beyond the range of the supporting ships at sea.

In other words, none of this could ever happen!

reply

When has Hollywood ever let little things like the facts get in the way? Having served with US Marines on a LPD, I agree with your assessment.

reply

For what its worth, the writer/producer, Jim Webb, is a Marine and a decorated Vietnam vet.

reply

Yeah, but Jim Webb was never on a MEU (SOC) and never had to execute a NEO/Sparrowhawk or Bald Eagle Contingency. (That being said tounge in cheek, Jim Webb was one of the greatest Lieutenants/Captains in the history of Marine Infantry Officers. Medical retirement is a B!+c#!) Another reason this movie would never happen is because, there was no violation of the Rules of Engagement committed. The bottom line statement on EVERY ROE Card ever issued is the following statement: "At no time will a US Marine be expected to act contrary to the interest of his own personal safety or that of his fellow Marines."

Marines came under fire. Marines were wounded. Marines were killed. On order, the Marines returned fire. End of story.

Also, a Marine Colonel as highly decorated and experienced as Col Terry Childers was would NOT have been flying along with his TRAP Team Commander. He would have complete trust and confidence in that young Captain or 1st Lieutenant to carry out that mission. He would have stayed aboard the USS Wake Island and started typing up the recommendation for their personal awards, Combat Action Ribbons, and USMC Expeditionary Medals.



"I'm goin' to war...with every one of them carpetbaggin' sons a B!#+c#es!"

reply

I like sen jim webb, but the amount of gaping holes this story's credibility had suggests he isn't a great writer. Or maybe the movie isn't like his book?

reply

I think the story was not meant to focus on these parts. Plus, it's a lot easier to shoot a movie with 300 people rather than 15,000 :)

The focus is on the dilemma. Not that I am disagreeing.

reply

While I agree with you for the most part, your second point is faulty. 300 unarmed Iranian students took the US embassy in Iran without any resistance from the Marines stationed there. On occasion the military does get caught with their pants down...

reply

We lost the Iranian embassy because the ambassador (a Carter appointee) gave a direct order not to engage the crowd.

reply

We been lost Iran as a ally. Shooting the protesters would have just been a massacre and you know the news would have ran with it.





Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

Does it really matter? It was still a fun movie!

So we're all really men of our word except for elizibeth who is in fact, a woman.~Jack Sparrow

reply

If they had fired on the crowd from the helicopters, they would have been better off.

reply

ridiculous

the baddies using human shields is nothing new...our current enemy uses it a strategy for christ's sake...it's win win for them...either we don't shoot at them b/c we're afraid of hitting innocents, or we do hit them and get blamed for killing innocents...however, they don't ALWAYS get a pass with this strategy and you end up with dead civilians AND dead bad guys...in those cases, we may be responsible, but certainly not guilty...i'm sure that phrase will fly over most of your heads

...an american embassy (and by definition that is considered sovereign US soil) is under fire for an hour by small arms and malatov cocktails...marines are sent in, also under fire and taking casualties including KIAs, and after holding fire for 15 minutes (THAT by the way is the real stupidity), eventually engages the enemy and he's gonna be prosecuted for that!? yeah right....

y'know if you had overdubbed that entire embassy with silly/goofy music it would've made for a hell of a comedy.



it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

reply

You are correct.

Every US Embassy is guarded by a Detachment of Marines assigned to the Marine Security Guard Battalion. They are called "Decks". A "Deck" can be anything from 12 to 30 Marines commanded by a Gunnery Sergeant or a Master Sergeant and depending on the Embassy. (For example the London Embassy and Paris Embassy are both large Decks. The Istanbul Embassy Deck is smaller.)

You do briefly see a couple of MSG Marines at the Embassy wearing Pistol Belts and carrying shotguns, they are also wearing green cammies. They open the back gate for the MEU (SOC) Marines and Col Childers to come in.

The main concern for the Marines aboard any Embassy is the security of the Department of State personnel and the security of all sensitive/classified documents and gear aboard the embassy. If an embassy is threatened or is being attacked, the MSG Marines have a very specific "to do" list, none of which involves going outside (or firing at targets outside) of the Embassy walls. They are more concerned with destroying all of the classified documents that the CIA Field Officer tells them to destroy.

"Simply Forgot Us"

reply

[deleted]

Individual marines in a detachment are commonly called 'watchstanders'.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Added to the goofs already?

reply

You missed the most obvious reason why it would never happen. A Colonel would never have gone on that mission in the first place! Haha. He'd have been back on the ship drinking coffee.

reply

[deleted]

You could add:
6. If there were snipers on adjacent roofs, firing into the crowd wouldn't have silenced them. I expected sam's character to get shot again when he stood up after ordering a cease fire.
7. His character wouldn't have been the only one to begin looking for sniper's locations and wait so long to do that after the first marine was hit.
8. Other marines testimonies would have easily impeached the ambassador's lies, yet none were called for that easy win.
9. A bullet shreaded flag given to the ambassador, would have been good evidence.

The prosecutor said he would only go on good evidence, which suggests honesty - but all we saw of that was his eyes reacting to the most important evidence that went missing too suspiciously (the tape) before he said he received all the necessary evidence.

This movie could have approached being realistic if the plot had sam's character seeing all those women and children firing furiously at his rootop position (while no bullets were striking the wall when he looked) but then the tape was played at his trial to show a different crowd, as it was at the beginning - no firing coming from them. We only saw firing from down there through his eyes, during a stressful moment and after being shot. It would have been both educating and understandable how minds see things that aren't there while under stress like that. Countless reports of troops firing into unarmed crowds involve reports of firing from the crowds causing it.

reply

ridiculous

the baddies using human shields is nothing new...our current enemy uses it a strategy for christ's sake...it's win win for them...either we don't shoot at them b/c we're afraid of hitting innocents, or we do hit them and get blamed for killing innocents...however, they don't ALWAYS get a pass with this strategy and you end up with dead civilians AND dead bad guys...in those cases, we may be responsible, but certainly not guilty...i'm sure that phrase will fly over most of your heads

...an american embassy (and by definition that is considered sovereign US soil) is under fire for an hour by small arms and malatov cocktails...marines are sent in, also under fire and taking casualties including KIAs, and after holding fire for 15 minutes (THAT by the way is the real stupidity), eventually engages the enemy and he's gonna be prosecuted for that!? yeah right....

y'know if you had overdubbed that entire embassy with silly/goofy music it would've made for a hell of a comedy.


it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

reply

[deleted]