Can't even finish watching Restrepo

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mouse on April 22, 2011 at 10:42pm

@Frank, There was no sarcasm whatsoever in my post to you.  I find it interesting you thought there was.  I believe you must have misread the entire tone of my post.

 

We do disagree on quite a few things, and I've no problem with that.  You do, however, misunderstand me on a number of points.  Let me ask you this, and please do not read any hostility, condescension, conflict, or sarcasm in my question.  I'm asking purely for purposes of discussion.  In your opinion, if we leave Afghanistan now, today, pack up every last American, weapon, tank, and bit of aid, what do you foresee would happen to the country?  It's a legitimate question, and one I believe we need to ask ourselves periodically during the course of any conflict.  My thoughts on the specific topic of Afghanistan have broadened considerably due to investigation into the country's political past, as well as by listening to Sebastian speak at length about his experiences and knowledge of the country, beginning with his first trip there in 1996.  His insights have been fascinating and revelatory to me.

 

I recognize your distinction on the subject of investors; it wasn't clear before.

 

Finally, to your firm assertion that Restrepo is a commentary on national policy, from the filmmakers themselves on many occasions, that just simply is not the case.  Certainly, and despite that fact, you may interpret the film however you wish. 

 

I look forward to your thoughts on my question.  I will read them; however, I am going to have to be ending my involvement on this forum for the time being, as Life - in the form of an imminent move to a new residence - is calling.

 

 

Best,

KP/mouse

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asher Whitney on April 22, 2011 at 10:42pm

With respect:  'Restrepo' was probably as true to the current operating environment as you are likely to see.  The caveat there of course is that war stories are like the fable about the blind men and the elephant: 1 beast, many parts, & many interpretations.  Every theater of operations is different, areas within theaters vary tremendously, and the situation on the ground changes daily.  That said, I've served in Iraq, and my brother served in the Korengal at the time the events in the movie take place. We are both Infantry officers. Neither of us found it sanitized.  I would say, in fact, that the film utterly understates the endless amount of time spent on things OTHER than direct fire contact.  (That's not a reflection on the film...I don't think that any art form can accurately convey the passage of time. The results, yes. Not the passage.) My take? If anything, it was UN-sanitized, in that the personnel and actions are presented 'warts and all'. 

Also, you might want to go take a picture of something huge & glorious (a mountain or sunset or full moon)...then show the picture to someone who wasn't there & see what they think.  Cameras don't show the totality of experience, outside of Hollywood. 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Waters on April 23, 2011 at 1:35am

Frank,

 

Respectfully, I have to disagree with your assessment of the film's purpose. It's not that the movie, "...describes in the clearest, most basic format how bankrupt our national policy is in East Asia." but rather that it's meant to provide a glimpse into the lives of the young men (used that gender because there were no women in the film) who volunteer to do something that most people shy away from. I really think that's all it's supposed to do. All of us who want to attach a greater, underlying meaning to it are selfishly using it for our own purposes (either pro- or anti-war) and taking away from the real focus: who among us fights and what happens to those that do.

 

As Soldiers, we don't get to decide whether or not the conflicts we fight in are justified, patriotic, or understood. We made our decision when we raised our right hand and took the oath. That time has passed and now we have jobs to do.

 

Watch toward the end of the movie, after the Soldiers have had their chance to describe their thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. Watch as they stare past the camera - some of them have a slightly defiant gaze that is held for a while, then they drop their eyes as they think about some of the things they've said and re-lived. I know that feeling well - it's when you realize what you've said and what the other person now knows about you and you're waiting for judgement. I don't know if the look is resignation or not, but it's there.

 

Anyhow, that's what I think the whole purpose of the movie is - that and nothing more.

Frank Driscoll said:

Hi Mouse.. thanks for your thoughts. It's in line three of my note that I take responsibility where I say, "the American youth WE allow our government to send there." My point is that for many reasons, we who object to this war are not as committed to its end as we were say, to stopping the Vietnam debacle.

I must correct you when you declare that taxpayers are investors. An investor is one who seeks a return on the capital put into a venture. We tax payers have spent a trillion dollars on Iraq/Afghanistan and will not realize a dime's return. Now, Dick Cheney, though his holdings in Haliburton has realized a substantial return. The CEO's of every major defense company are benefitting from extraordinary  gains and the oil companies are enjoying the most profitable period of their existance.

Please allow me to disagree with you again, Mouse, and without the sarcasm that unfortunately detracts from your overall thoughtfulness. In my opinion, the movie Restrepo is a commentary. When taken as a whole, it is a visible and oral statement on the efficacy of the ten year effort by the United states of America to gain control of Afghanistan.

Just look at the scorecard. Like every nation who has preceded us, we have failed to gain control; we are making enemies of the people and motivating many to become new recruits for the Taliban; we have sent waves of dedicated, patriotic youth into a situation they know by the time they leave to be a futile mission, and if they return to the States in one piece, they can't find a job; and the majority of Americans in most every poll want us out. 

So there is a big bad 'they' who are behind this war effort and it will continue far into the future, for as long as it provides a profit to industry, paid for by our tax dollars, or until Americans take to the streets to shut it down. In my opinion you missed the point of the movie which describes in the clearest, most basic format how bankrupt our national policy is in East Asia. At least that's how I see it.

 

Frank

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Driscoll on April 23, 2011 at 12:04pm

GM Mouse, I apologize for misreading your words. 

Your question is most important and the question too few of our politicians considered going in. When we leave, not a near term scenario, it will for a time be more of a mess. But it is also more of a mess with us there than it was before. The "elected officials" are primarily warlords who have maintained control under new and temporary titles. They will play along, bribed with US taxpayer dollars to do so. The Karzai brothers are no exception.

We are there because of the strategic, geo-political significance of the turf. This is realpolitik dressed up by the spin masters as an effort to democratize  Afghanistan. The U.S. military is needed to provide cover and enforcement during the construction of infrastructure supporting a long term foothold in the region. 

Afghanistan will not be conquered by a foreign army. The indigenous fighters would rather die than allow such a disgrace. So if we stay, young American warriors, the cream of America's youth, will continue to die following orders. The troopers manning Restrepo would choose death over retreat. They frequently risked death protecting each other. And when they return home, they'll get a few 'attaboys', but after the uniforms are stowed and they take that first walk through the old neighborhood, they'll quickly realize that the return to civilian life is harsh. Support for these men and women is negligible though clearly warranted by the sacrifices they have made.

Afghanistan will continue to be a mess whether we stay or not. But without our presence, children will not die from the  collateral damage currently inflicted by American weapons. And, as important to me, the death and horrific battlefield injuries of our troops will cease.

In reference to "Restrepo" as commentary; I read " To Kill a Mockingbird" to my kids when they were young because it is a great story with brilliantly drawn characters and, sadly, a vivid depiction of how unfair life can be to some. But of course it is much more than that and it became the platform from which we as a family discussed slavery, racism and the prejudice that exists in our country even as we speak. It might be that my definition of 'commentary' is too broad, or even incorrect. But that is how I understand and use works so profound as 'Restrepo".

Hope the move goes well, Mouse.

Frank 

mouse said:

@Frank, There was no sarcasm whatsoever in my post to you.  I find it interesting you thought there was.  I believe you must have misread the entire tone of my post.

 

We do disagree on quite a few things, and I've no problem with that.  You do, however, misunderstand me on a number of points.  Let me ask you this, and please do not read any hostility, condescension, conflict, or sarcasm in my question.  I'm asking purely for purposes of discussion.  In your opinion, if we leave Afghanistan now, today, pack up every last American, weapon, tank, and bit of aid, what do you foresee would happen to the country?  It's a legitimate question, and one I believe we need to ask ourselves periodically during the course of any conflict.  My thoughts on the specific topic of Afghanistan have broadened considerably due to investigation into the country's political past, as well as by listening to Sebastian speak at length about his experiences and knowledge of the country, beginning with his first trip there in 1996.  His insights have been fascinating and revelatory to me.

 

I recognize your distinction on the subject of investors; it wasn't clear before.

 

Finally, to your firm assertion that Restrepo is a commentary on national policy, from the filmmakers themselves on many occasions, that just simply is not the case.  Certainly, and despite that fact, you may interpret the film however you wish. 

 

I look forward to your thoughts on my question.  I will read them; however, I am going to have to be ending my involvement on this forum for the time being, as Life - in the form of an imminent move to a new residence - is calling.

 

 

Best,

KP/mouse

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reihl Mahoney on April 23, 2011 at 12:36pm

Well said Jonathon! I share all of your sentiments.

Indeed Rest in Peace Tim. Thank you for keeping us informed by putting yourself in harm's way. We are all better off and more informed because of your hard work.

Sebastian - I'm truly sorry for the loss of your friend. It just plain sucks. My most sincere condolances to you and especially to Tim's family & friends.

Peace,

Reihl

JONATHAN C. said:

I share the sentiment with most that I found Restrepo tremendously compelling. 

 

But I will say this. A very level-headed response from Mr. Junger. Impressive. Although I am sure having your work picked apart is part of the job when it comes to writing, producing and other artisitic/journalistic endeavors. 

 

RIP Mr. Heatherington. You and your your contributions to our world will be missed. My condolences to Mr. Junger and Mr. Heatherington's family. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Driscoll on April 23, 2011 at 9:34pm

Hi Tim... I note the bankruptcy of our national policy because the result is, in my mind, the brazen exploitation of men like you who have sworn to follow the orders of your commander in chief. My father, wounded on Iwo Jima spoke little of his combat experience. In the 60s he would leave the room as the nightly news footage displayed the terrible carnage of the Vietnam war. He despised the leaders who sent so many young Americans to fight and die for spurious reasons, revealed time and again to be based on lies.

I used the phrase 'the cream of America's youth' being sent off to fight and die. Those are my father's words. The young men and women who will lay down their lives to defend the strangers standing behind them are special and uncommon. We should treat these sacred lives with a holy respect that prevents us from easily placing them in harms way. The corrupt men setting national policy today have never placed themselves in harm's way. They jump almost immediately to a military solution, without regard for the  death their actions cause.

They know that their children and grandchildren will never face death and they know that theirs will never carry the terror, the garish flashbacks of what warriors must do to each other in combat. They will look into the eyes of their sons and daughters and never will they experience the stare you speak of Tim, that is the terrible badge worn by those my Dad considered 'the cream of America's youth'. As you are, Tim.

Respectfully,

Frank

Tim Waters said:

Frank,

 

Respectfully, I have to disagree with your assessment of the film's purpose. It's not that the movie, "...describes in the clearest, most basic format how bankrupt our national policy is in East Asia." but rather that it's meant to provide a glimpse into the lives of the young men (used that gender because there were no women in the film) who volunteer to do something that most people shy away from. I really think that's all it's supposed to do. All of us who want to attach a greater, underlying meaning to it are selfishly using it for our own purposes (either pro- or anti-war) and taking away from the real focus: who among us fights and what happens to those that do.

 

As Soldiers, we don't get to decide whether or not the conflicts we fight in are justified, patriotic, or understood. We made our decision when we raised our right hand and took the oath. That time has passed and now we have jobs to do.

 

Watch toward the end of the movie, after the Soldiers have had their chance to describe their thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. Watch as they stare past the camera - some of them have a slightly defiant gaze that is held for a while, then they drop their eyes as they think about some of the things they've said and re-lived. I know that feeling well - it's when you realize what you've said and what the other person now knows about you and you're waiting for judgement. I don't know if the look is resignation or not, but it's there.

 

Anyhow, that's what I think the whole purpose of the movie is - that and nothing more.

Frank Driscoll said:

Hi Mouse.. thanks for your thoughts. It's in line three of my note that I take responsibility where I say, "the American youth WE allow our government to send there." My point is that for many reasons, we who object to this war are not as committed to its end as we were say, to stopping the Vietnam debacle.

I must correct you when you declare that taxpayers are investors. An investor is one who seeks a return on the capital put into a venture. We tax payers have spent a trillion dollars on Iraq/Afghanistan and will not realize a dime's return. Now, Dick Cheney, though his holdings in Haliburton has realized a substantial return. The CEO's of every major defense company are benefitting from extraordinary  gains and the oil companies are enjoying the most profitable period of their existance.

Please allow me to disagree with you again, Mouse, and without the sarcasm that unfortunately detracts from your overall thoughtfulness. In my opinion, the movie Restrepo is a commentary. When taken as a whole, it is a visible and oral statement on the efficacy of the ten year effort by the United states of America to gain control of Afghanistan.

Just look at the scorecard. Like every nation who has preceded us, we have failed to gain control; we are making enemies of the people and motivating many to become new recruits for the Taliban; we have sent waves of dedicated, patriotic youth into a situation they know by the time they leave to be a futile mission, and if they return to the States in one piece, they can't find a job; and the majority of Americans in most every poll want us out. 

So there is a big bad 'they' who are behind this war effort and it will continue far into the future, for as long as it provides a profit to industry, paid for by our tax dollars, or until Americans take to the streets to shut it down. In my opinion you missed the point of the movie which describes in the clearest, most basic format how bankrupt our national policy is in East Asia. At least that's how I see it.

 

Frank

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Cannon on April 25, 2011 at 11:45pm

You dishonor the sacrifice made by soldiers killed in action. You do not deserve the freedom they provide. There is nothing sanitized about the book or film. Sorry you didn't get to witness enough killing of American soldiers. Your agenda would prefer 10,000 casualties to one if it would help validate your already transparent "argument." I am ashamed that these men and women have to return home, those that survive combat, and share our freedoms with people similar, and often times worse than you! The fact that you recoil from your strongly stated original position shows just what kind of spineless blabbering fool most of us realized upon reading your nonsense. Your contention that Mr. Junger has sold his soul is beyond laughable. Quite frankly, I doubt you have any beliefs in the first place and your comments are simply meant to be inflammatory, at best. You have as much credibility as Roseanne Barr on CNN championing "roughage diets." I couldn't help but laugh when the next time I see her on a commercial she's getting hit by a log on a Snickers commercial! What a joke, as are you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CPT (R) George Paul Farris, USA on April 30, 2011 at 8:39am

Young Ellen:

 

Generations of American patriots have sacrificed to assure that you may express your opinion — it's your right. Over time you may come to discover that how you express yourself will inevitably leave an impression of how you acted long after what you uttered will be forgotten.

 

To be so rude to someone from behind the anonymity of the Internet you must have some serious issues, or a pathology. Perhaps the time has come for you to seek professional counseling to dissipate your rage. Ellen, it's plain bad manners to lash out at anyone for expressing their creative talent. If you had attended a lecture would you heckled Mr. Junger the same way? I suspect not as you would be concerned over how the audience would perceive you. Most literate individuals would think something is amiss when you address one of the more acclaimed and proven lights on today's literary landscape in such an uinformed manner.

 

However, more than your banal whining I find I am more offended by your prosaic and uninformed inference that Restrepois somehow "sanitized," or does not portray the realism of combat. With that you pass from the realm of incivility to ignorance. Messrs. Junger, and the late, lamented Hetherington presented a truly honest and accurate rendering of an infantry platoon deployed in a combat zone. No doubt you have had more exposure to Disney than to combat. 

 

The bonding which is only forged under fire and tempered with blood is honestly shown in Restrepo — the strain of their muscles under their burdens, the sour smell of their sweat, the gallows humor, the hopes, fears, dreams, and uncertainty are all covered. Covered, so far as I can determine, without a scintilla of any political agenda. No doubt political agendas from multi-faceted interests no doubt drive events which result in troop deployments, for as Clausewitz wrote, "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means." Before you next shoot from the lip you would do well to internalize that it's about the warrior, not the war.

 

Drum-beats, mom, apple pie, patriotism, history, nationalism, and the guarantee of a future education will get men to train as soldiers, but none of those motivations will necessarily get them to fight. In the end the geometry of emotions is quite simple. There are two reasons why they fight and perform above and beyond the call of duty for their buddies, their squad, their platoon, or neighboring platoons. In disparate climes, and desperate conditions, they fight for one another. This I know first hand because I spent three combat tours in Vietnam with the same regiment Junger & Hetherington covered, the 503d Parachute Infantry of the 173d Airborne Brigade. Three tours, often knee-deep in water and waist-deep in water carrying a 100 pound rucksack, and dodging incoming fire. This type of experience imbues one with an ability to distinguish politicians from soldiers. It's this type of credential I surmise you so fortunately lack as a foundation to opine about the realism of combat.

 

Do you even know a soldier you might ask? If not try and benefit from the interaction you have experienced here. Try writing a deployed service member a letter. If you don't know how to go about it, try Any Soldier a volunteer non-profit operation. You may be surprised at what you learn and the gratification you will receive.

 

Best wishes,

George

FARRIS

CPT, IN

USA (R)

 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready  to do violence on their behalf.                                — George Orwell

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lyla Westwick on May 15, 2011 at 5:43pm

Just finished watching Restrepo and was riveted from start to finish. Truly one of the best documentaries that I have ever seen..visceral and gut wrenching. Thank you for your honest raw portrayal as seen through the eyes of these soldiers. Their lost innocence and transformation touched my heart. Infinite thanks to these brave men and to you Mr. Junger for your gifts and talents. As for Ellen H's previous remarks I believe she missed the true essence of this film. Nonetheless, your political views aside, please have some compassion for these soldiers who will undoubtedly suffer from PTSD on a daily basis for the rest of their lives. All so that you, Ellen, can sit at home in your comfortable chair, no risk taken, and criticize.

Lyla

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie on May 16, 2011 at 4:25pm

Dear Mr Junger,

 

I came to your website to offer my sincere condolences on the loss of your colleague and friend.

I bought your book in Schiphol 2 days ago on my own way back to the Middle East ( I am not in the Military).

 

When I saw Tim Hetherington as the photographer credit for your portrait on the back cover? -I'm just so, so sorry.

I don't think I can finish reading 'War' now. It was- I don't know how to describe it, other than horrible.

I had a tremendous amount of respect for my American military friends serving here, but to think what they have gone through on postings in Iraq and Afghanistan makes me sick to the stomach. Thank you both for helping me try to understand. But I don't think I'll ever be able to watch 'Restrepo'- Thank you to you both for making it.

Tim Hetherington was killed in the town I was born in-  I just hope that some of the people who comment here sort their heads out,

Yours respectfully,

 

Stephanie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mouse on May 16, 2011 at 7:20pm

Stephanie, you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to finish reading "WAR" - and to see "Restrepo" when you feel you're ready.  Tim obviously was very proud of his work and wanted it to be seen.  His photography book, "Infidel", is a companion piece to these two works of art.  Give yourself time to process all that you've been through.  It may just be a case of waiting for the gift of Time to soften your burdens a bit.

 

I wish you the very best,

mouse

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogan Tekben on May 17, 2011 at 1:02pm

Ellen H.

 

Please explain and defend your seemingly overwrought outrage.  Words, be they spoken or written have a lot to say about who their author is.  Judging from your comments I would suggest that your issues with 'selling out' are more relevant to your deeds than to Mr. Junger's or Mr. Hetherington's.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page