MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Question for Military officers about a s...

Question for Military officers about a scene...

posted 19 years ago by pcventures
17 replies | jump to latest

a flashback is shown that depicts Terry Childers (Samuel Jackson) using an
unusual tactic to stop a North Vietnamese attack - he basically finds
the NVA officer leading the assault, points a gun to the man's head
and tells him to order his men to withdraw. He does so, ending the
engagement.
My question is: I thought this was a very unconventional thing to do
on a battlefield. Is this something "permitted" by US military law
for an officer to do? It just seemed so... un officer-like, because
it was more about ending a threat than destroying an enemy, which is
what our soldiers are supposed to do.
Please don't interpret this as "hey let's throw our guys in harm's
way just to achieve an objective" which I don't believe in, but as
"technically, was this officer doing the right thing? And if not,
what are the possible consequences to that officer?"

[–] emc2f 19 years ago

This one I think I can answer. I'm a former Army infantry soldier, but I don't dare make the assumption that I'd be totally right.

First and foremost, the senior officer on the ground makes the decisions. The Hollywood crap about calling HQ for orders is simply crap. Destroying the enemy is something every infantry soldier is trained to do, and will do if ordered. However, most soldiers are actually human beings and hesitant to kill anyone.

Therefore, if the senior ground officer chooses a decision, it is carried out by his men. Military law is somewhat vague on this. If the act willfully threatens civilians, the officer may be tried in a military court. But the protection of his men is paramount. Military law will butcher an officer for getting his men killed more than any other offense.

With Col. Childers, I think the military would allow this kind of action. Yes, the general war idea is to kill everyone on the other team. But the colonel was acting to end an engagement, saving his men's lives in the process. Killing the man if it had been necessary would have been sanctioned under military orders. So no, I don't think this tactic, however unconventional it seems, is a wrong idea and no, the military would not punish it.

[–] Kimi03 19 years ago

The Military obviously does not encourage actions like that, yes thats obvious. But you have to understand that in War, more times than not, politics play no role and any form of getting the job done is used. Yes, the Vietnamese man was a POW, but at the same time many US Marines were getting killed and the job of a Staff Seargent or Col is to bring back all of his Platoon back safely. If you are an American, and you were fighting over in Iraq right now, would you assasinate an Iraqi insurgent if you trully believed it was going to save the life of your fellow soldiers? I hope you said yes, because the enemy would do the same thing in a heartbeat. War is not pretty, its ugly.

[–] pcventures 19 years ago

Sure I would... I'm not saying that what Col Childers did was totally wrong... just strange.
From a pragmatic point of view - sure you do what you must to save your men, but as far as I know, "preserving the lives of men under your command" isn't the priority given to officers in combat, but "destroying the enemy" - as far as I know...
I posted this question on another forum somewhere else, and got this answer. In effect, the responder told me that what he should have done was have the enemy officer order a surrender, not a withdrawal...

[–] Spartan10 19 years ago

I've been a Lieutenant with the rangers in Afghanistan and Iraq and I'll tell you without hesitation that what he did in the jungle to get the VC to pull of his fellow soldiers was EXACTLY the same thing i'd do. I don't believe (i'd like to think anyway...but unless you've been in combat you don't have ANY idea what it's like) that I would have shot the radio officer just to prove my intentions, but you can be certain that I would have held a gun to his head if his men were slaughtering my men.

The thing you have to realize is that as officers and senior NCO's we're entrusted with the greatest honor...leading the worlds finest young soldiers into harms way and having the responsibility for bringing them out yourself. As we were leaving for Afghanistan merely months after watching the towers fall on 9/11 the gravity of the situation is overwhelming. If you've ever been entrusted with 80+ lives and been trusted to take them into the lions den...then you'll understand that holding a gun to an enemy combatants head to persuade him to disengage his men would be a no-brainer decision. I'd carpet bomb baghdad to save the lives of my men. And i'm sure any officer out there will agree with me.

As for whether or not the military would condone this type of behavior. Negative. Sticking point is...after action reports and the like would be curiously devoid of any mention of such incident. It wouldn't be something you'd advertise about...just that your men had supressed the enemy and they had broken contact.

[–] dream79 19 years ago

That's for sure, also from my view as a former Sergeant in an allied Army.
Ans I'm glad about any Officer who has that courage to saves his mens live.

Regards

Peter

[–] pcventures 19 years ago

Interesting response... I wasn't trying to say that I personally felt that what Childers did was wrong, only that I felt on a gut level that it was unorthodox, and wanted to understand better whether what he did would be condoned by those higher up the chain of command.

[–] Spartan10 19 years ago

Condoned? No. But you could bet your house that his CO woulda bought him a beer for it.

[–] alec81484 19 years ago

They go hand in hand. Im guessing it is difficult to destroy the enemy if you dont have any men to destroy them with.

[–] tarhealer 19 years ago

I have read the responses to "pcventures'" question and find them interesting...and reassuring. A related question: why, after the VC withdrew, did the Samuel Jackson character simply tell the VC officer he could just walk away? Indeed, wasn't he a POW?

[–] Spartan10 19 years ago

Well, my only thoughts on that would be...would you want a POW (an officer at that) to be held and questioned and reveal that he'd seen Jackson's character execute somebody? Probably not. That or Jackson figured he got what he needed out of the officer and was letting him go for calling his men off.

[–] exsanguinator 19 years ago

Or it could also be that Childers was an honorable man and that part of the bargain was letting the man go like he said he would.

[–] Spartan10 19 years ago

That too, I haven't seen the movie for a bit, I wasn't 100% sure if Jackson said he would let the man go or not. Thanks!

[–] KillerMovieMan 18 years ago

That is correct, he gave him his word and lived up to it.

[–] sgm_law 19 years ago

It's not "an unusual tactic," it's a crime! The answer to this question is given during the trial - when Biggs asks to put the Cao on the stand, Hodges tells the judge that Biggs can't put Cao on the stand because he would testify to prior "misconduct," which isn't allowed under the military code of justice (probably for reasons of prejudicing the jury in the current trial, but they don't go into the whys). Biggs comes up with a reason to override that rule, and Cao gets to testify. The whole reason Biggs wanted him to testify about Childers' actions was that it would cloud his record of stellar military performance before the jury, who knows that it was a crime (not enough legal knowledge here, but it probably violates all sorts of things like the Geneva Convention, etc.)

Then after the trial, Biggs threatens to bring charges against Childers for the actions Childers took with Cao and the radioman - but Hodges says it would be difficult to find witnesses for something 30 years ago - clearly they both know that it is a chargeable offense.

But Hodges neutralizes the effect by getting Cao to admit he would have done the same thing (making the point to the non-combat-hardened members of the jury that the gritty, real world of combat is different than the idealistic approach of civilian justice).

Then at the end, because the one witness who is around who could testify about the incident (Hodges) refuses to do so, they put the message on the screen that Childers was not charged with any further crimes...

[–] ssteamboat1959 18 years ago

Unorthadox....yes. Illegal---probably. BUT if I were laying in Hodge's position I would hope that someone like the Childers is there and can bring an end to the Hell going on around me in any way possible!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eeobugga 18 years ago

I think that asking the NVA officer if he would have done the same thing also underscores the differences between Asian Communists and Americans...what would have been OK for them was not OK for us, although I'm glad he did it. US soldiers were prosecuted in Bosnia I think a few years ago for PRETENDING to execute a prisoner so another prisoner would talk...