MovieChat Forums > Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion > Five options, not three

Five options, not three

posted 11 years ago by ColonelFaulkner
55 replies | jump to latest

Don't know the veracity of the story, because of course most films take some artistic and dramatic licence, but in the film they discussed.

1. Slotting them
2. Tying them up
3. Letting them go

4. Of course it remains that they could have taken them with them. They had cable ties to restrain them and restrict their mobility. Cables ties are very versatile and you can restrain or immobilise people in a number of ways to prevent them escaping or resisting you. You wouldn't have to take them all the way with you, because it's a two way trip. They have to get back and warn the militants, then the militants need to travel back to the area. Taking them for two or three hours would be a two or three hour trip and then two or three hours of travel time for the militants. If your movement time is pretty constant, each hour you took them along would buy you two hours.

5. They could even have tied them all together with the cable ties in such a way that they could only have made their way back to the village at an absolute snails pace, such as lashing their ankles to one another one facing forwards and one facing backwards, etc. with three people you could tie them all together at the ankles all facing inwards, like a triangle or tie wrists to ankles, etc.

Like I said, don't know the real story, but the dilemma as shown in the film felt a little contrived.

"Yeeha, just like f%^cking Saigon eh slick"?
"I was in junior high dickhead"!

[–] vink0286 11 years ago

Yes I wondered about those choices myself too. If they had taken them with them it would have been a more difficult hump up the hill but they probably would have gotten away savely. Difficult to say ofcourse now.

But more on that and other stuff can be found here: http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/lone-survivor.php

"We Don't Take No *beep* From A Machine"

[–] ronfirv 11 years ago

Agreed, OP.

[–] Okeelani 11 years ago

Why doesn't anyone ever think of this obvious option:

One of the soldiers stays put and guards the sheep herders. The other 2 soldiers head up to higher ground to call for help!

[–] ronfirv 11 years ago

They were SEALS! You don't call up Base for help the first problem you hit! These guys are paid because they are special and a grade or two above an ordinary soldier. That includes having initiative and being an ideas man. Same with the British SAS. No point in having Units like these guys if they are always reverting to base for help, ffs!

[–] Bandersnatch1 11 years ago

Guess you missed the part where they tried to call base for help with the first problem they ran into. They were already resolved to scrubbing the mission at that point and were trying to extract.

[–] trickg1 11 years ago

Options 4 and 5 are not realistic. You can't take them with you where they will hinder you in every way they can, and create so much noise that it would completely blow the covert nature of the mission.

Option 5 would be just as bad - as soon as they were mobile and far enough away, they'd start yelling and drawing attention to themselves, again blowing the covert nature of the mission.

They did the correct thing, even if it may not have been the "right" thing.

Leaving one guy to guard them also compromises the mission - as a 4-man team they were already a skeleton crew - they had to either let them go, or deal with them in some other way.

My name is Gladiator - Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] Formula1Fan 11 years ago

I think the best option would have been to tie up the boys, who were quite healthy, and send off the old man by himself. He would have taken longer to get down and buy them time. Of course they would imply they were taking the boys with them as prisoners so the old man wouldn't have a reason to double back.

[–] gfarrell80 11 years ago

Tying up the boys and letting the old man go down is an interesting and possibly the best option.

Also, once they had released the captives they should have dropped all their excess gear. Water, rifle, and ammunition only. They knew they were in a foot race for their lives but they still kept all their unnecessary equipment. I definitely would have ordered my men in that situation to strip down light.

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

If you leave gear behind you also leave them path to follow...

[–] xxhaimbondxx 11 years ago

They were "compromised" any way. They didn't have to worry about blowing any missions.

[–] gangsta_toes 11 years ago

Options 4 and 5 are not realistic. You can't take them with you where they will hinder you in every way they can, and create so much noise that it would completely blow the covert nature of the mission.

Option 5 would be just as bad - as soon as they were mobile and far enough away, they'd start yelling and drawing attention to themselves, again blowing the covert nature of the mission.

They did the correct thing, even if it may not have been the "right" thing.

Leaving one guy to guard them also compromises the mission - as a 4-man team they were already a skeleton crew - they had to either let them go, or deal with them in some other way.

That is ridiculous. Yes you can take them with you, they weren't injured or anything. Personally I think option #5 is useless because you don't know when you'll be extracted, so #4 is the only option here.

As far as the hostages making noise goes, they could have done that from the start, but once you get them several feet up the mountain (which they already were) who's going to hear them anyway? Also would they be so apt to make noise at gunpoint? Or how about this...gag them.

Either way the best option would have been to take the hostages up the mountain with them and not cut them loose until the helo's touch down. You don't cut them loose once you're at the rally point because you may not get in contact with home station for a while. You don't cut them loose when you get in contact with home station because who knows how long til the rescue actually arrives. No, you cut them loose when the helo's touch down.

There is no argument that can convince me this wasn't the best option.

Another gripe I had was even after letting them go, they didn't seem to be in any particular hurry to vacate the area. It was like they didn't even seriously factor in the possibility they might get tracked down and attacked.

[–] trickg1 11 years ago

That is ridiculous. Yes you can take them with you, they weren't injured or anything. Personally I think option #5 is useless because you don't know when you'll be extracted, so #4 is the only option here.

As far as the hostages making noise goes, they could have done that from the start, but once you get them several feet up the mountain (which they already were) who's going to hear them anyway? Also would they be so apt to make noise at gunpoint? Or how about this...gag them.

Either way the best option would have been to take the hostages up the mountain with them and not cut them loose until the helo's touch down. You don't cut them loose once you're at the rally point because you may not get in contact with home station for a while. You don't cut them loose when you get in contact with home station because who knows how long til the rescue actually arrives. No, you cut them loose when the helo's touch down.

There is no argument that can convince me this wasn't the best option.

Another grip I had was even after letting them go, they didn't seem to be in any particular hurry to vacate the area. It was like they didn't even seriously factor in the possibility they might get tracked down and attacked.

For one, you weren't there, so it's easy to armchair quarterback the decision when it all looks rosy to you.

In the book, Marcus explains the situation a bit more thoroughly and it's not completely accurate to the way it was depicted in the movie. In that terrain, bringing them along, especially considering the old man, wasn't a good option. And they DID try to get out of there as quickly as they could - again, we're talking mountains, not hills. How fast do you expect them to go while lugging 40-50 pounds of gear, rifles, ammo and all of that?

I think what the movie was trying to illustrate is that those people, particularly the young goatherds, seemed to be very at home navigating the rocks and rough terrain, and did it in an amazingly quick, efficient and agile way, where it was a real effort for them, partly due to the gear they were carrying, and partly because they didn't grow up there, climbing those mountains and trails every day.

I've said this about a dozen times already in threads about this movie, but for anyone who has issues with various plot points, or can't get their head around why things were done in a certain way, READ THE BOOK. Then, watch the movie again - I can almost guarantee that you will understand things better.

My name is Gladiator - Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] rmiikku 11 years ago

I think taking them to extraction point would had been the most logical and easiest solution. They might be huge Taliban supporters, but most likely they are just some people at the wrong place at the wrong time. They don't have reason to start trouble or get in middle of a gun fight.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 10 years ago

Disagree on both counts. Taking them with them, while slightly more cumbersome, is miles better than letting them run straight to the Taliban. Can they yell when tied up? Yes, but so can they when they are not, and when not tied up, they can get within earshot of the enemy sooner. I would say the single best course of action would have been to keep them detained until the helo had arrived.

"Gold buys a mans silence for a time. A bolt to the heart buys it forever"

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

Options 4 and 5 are not realistic. You can't take them with you where they will hinder you in every way they can, and create so much noise that it would completely blow the covert nature of the mission.

They didn't need to take all 3 of them. Take 1 (the boy) and tie the 2 men together and leave them behind, then release the boy when safe so he can "rescue" the men...

[–] schumithecat 11 years ago

it wasn't really contrived becasue that part I think was close to how it really played out. i would've done what you said, basically tried to disable them by binding them together and to a tree and maybe bashing them on the foot with a big rock so it would take them an hour or two to get help.

no way i'd bring them with me, it woudl be too easy for them to try to grab a gun, pull grenade pin, or whack you on head with rock, or intentionally slow down.

they were carrying 80-100 lbs. each of guns, ammo & equipment climbing uphill vs. some kid wearing light clothes running downhill. they should've known he would get help very quickly.

[–] blonkm-882-588631 11 years ago

I came up immediately with those exact two options while watching the movie. I believe this is what actually killed those tough navy SEALs: being too simple minded to think outside of the box. I have the utmost respect for their guts and determination, but thinking is not their best quality (if it was they'd be scientists, not navy SEALs). So their preparation needs to be better, and that is the job of their (M)CPO, they should be smart, they should have included the 5 bullet points (no pun intended) on the PowerPoint slides regarding the 'compromised mission situation'. SEALs can drill anything in their heads with enough repetition, and then they already know the options they have learned while in that cruel training camp. All the while they should learn some basic words in Arabic, like 'knife', that seems like a useful one. They say if you're not strong, you have to be smart. But it's better to be strong and let someone else be smart for you. Guts and adrenaline can't think you out of a difficult situation. I bet any CIA guy would have easily gotten away there. But I guess SEALs are expendable and they don't want them to think too much, during training or on missions. Sorry I don't mean to insult SEALs I think they have great talent, but if this scene is in any way real it shows how some people are screwed from the start.

[–] adam-khoudja 11 years ago

What are u talking about No Rope. Who needs rope. Straps from backpack, belt etc

[–] bubblenator 11 years ago

What are u talking about No Rope. Who needs rope. Straps from backpack, belt etc

Tying up the boys and letting the old man go down is an interesting and possibly the best option.

I think the best option would have been to tie up the boys, who were quite healthy, and send off the old man by himself.

2. Tying them up
4. Of course it remains that they could have taken them with them. They had cable ties to restrain them and restrict their mobility. Cables ties are very versatile and you can restrain or immobilise people in a number of ways to prevent them escaping or resisting you.
5. They could even have tied them all together with the cable ties in such a way that they could only have made their way back to the village at an absolute snails pace, such as lashing their ankles to one another one facing forwards and one facing backwards, etc. with three people you could tie them all together at the ankles all facing inwards, like a triangle or tie wrists to ankles, etc.

JUST TO INFORM EVERY POSTER ON THIS THREAD THEY HAD NO ROPE NOR FLEX-CUFFS THAT WERE ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN IN THE MOVIE.
Page236.
We didn't have rope to bind them. Tying them up to give us more time to establish a new position wasn't an option.

It's OK to let them get away with not having flex-cuffs on them as they're weren't intending to get compromised or take prisoners. However with not one of them even having basic paracord/550 cord on them which has 101 uses is unbelievable for such highly trained operators.

no way i'd bring them with me, it would be too easy for them to try to grab a gun, pull grenade pin, or whack you on head with rock, or intentionally slow down.

So you don't think FOUR Navy SEALs can march an old man and two teenagers at gunpoint to their new helo RV point without getting overpowered?

If you're not willing to give up everything, you've already lost

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

...THEY HAD NO ROPE NOR FLEX-CUFFS...

Surprising! I can understand that it's the sort of mission where they wouldn't be expecting nor wanting to take prisoners, but cable ties take up little room and have multiple uses.

[–] bubblenator 11 years ago

Surprising! I can understand that it's the sort of mission where they wouldn't be expecting nor wanting to take prisoners, but cable ties take up little room and have multiple uses.

Exactly right, even basic infantry men/women in the Army or Marines are taught the numerous uses of 550 cord and it fits nicely into a Velcro pocket for easy access. For example this simple Survival Site below has come up with a list of 80 uses, although they aren't all military inclined. You'll have to ask Mr Luttrell why nobody brought flex cuffs or at the very least any type of rope, string or cord?!

http://survivallife.com/2013/01/31/80-uses-for-paracord-what-did-i-mis s/#

If you're not willing to give up everything, you've already lost

[–] Jake_Zero 10 years ago

I was never a Navy Seal, but when I was with 3/75th (Army) even back in the 90's we replaced our boot laces with 550 cord. Even a bit extra we wrapped around the cuff of our boots so we'd have extra if we needed it.

If we needed more than that extra provided we simply re-laced and skipped a few eyelets. The boots were tall enough that even in rocky mountain terrain we could get them tight enough for more than adequate support.

[–] American1 11 years ago

#5 from OP was spot on. However frustrating it was to watch that part, I am loathe to second guess these men. #5 was exactly what I thought when I watched this, though. I almost yelled at the TV for them to do it. God bless them.

[–] blisteringlogic 11 years ago

What you suggest all makes sense, but I for one am not going to second guess those men.