Generation Kill

Ah-Teen said:
Why not talk to real soldiers or real veterans? Or is first hand information too unreliable so we go to political fiction(I assume thats what generation kill is). Non fiction sources > fiction.
Click to expand...
Generation kill is the story of a group of marines as seen through the eyes of an embedded reporter during the invasion. Very good read, and I think it has become recomended reading for officers in the US military because it helps the officers better understand how the grunts feel in battle, and how they react to different forms of leadership.

That means that the reporter was there, he got shot at, he saw the incompetence of the officers himself and he also heard what the grunts had to say about their officers. Pretty much everyone that has been asked about the book says that it gives a good picture except those officers who is shown as incompetent.

got an article

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A25755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2


As for godfather being ambitious. He gave his men some free rein, something others did not and in the book the bushmasters describe him as "great" because he allowed them to use their weapons to their fulllest and did not allow the ROE to endanger his men. Ambitious yeah, but he sure as hell does not let the enemy take the initiative if he can help it, and I think the series does a better job than the book to show that.

Think about it, would you rather have an ambitious commander that cares about his men enough to allow them to protect themselves, or an commander that is so afraid of breaking the ROE that he endangers them. Again just look at what the bushmaster people say about him in the book.

Or what is said about him here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLpOnpHaZw[/youtube]
 
Loxley said:
Ah-Teen said:
Why not talk to real soldiers or real veterans? Or is first hand information too unreliable so we go to political fiction(I assume thats what generation kill is). Non fiction sources > fiction.
Click to expand...
Generation kill is the story of a group of marines as seen through the eyes of an embedded reporter during the invasion. Very good read, and I think it has become recomended reading for officers in the US military because it helps the officers better understand how the grunts feel in battle, and how they react to different forms of leadership.

That means that the reporter was there, he got shot at, he saw the incompetence of the officers himself and he also heard what the grunts had to say about their officers. Pretty much everyone that has been asked about the book says that it gives a good picture except those officers who is shown as incompetent.
Click to expand...

Cool. I'll look into it. However I still believe that speaking with soldiers and getting their knowledge and their stories should be your first source of information.

It is difficult to separate your own views from what you write, even journalistic writing. It is still one voice. Getting information from multiple sources is really the only way to get a good understanding. Maybe not a real understanding(as in you'd have to actually have been there to get a real understanding), but a good one.
 
Loxley said:
Ah-Teen said:
Very good read, and I think it has become recomended reading for officers in the US military because it helps the officers better understand how the grunts feel in battle, and how they react to different forms of leadership.
Click to expand...
This is true, my brother (U.S. Marine) had to read this along with other books, that I cannot remember at the moment, but I have to agree with you, a very good read indeed, one of my favorite non fiction works of literature.
Click to expand...
 
Here I am dinking around thinking its political fiction. Damn you all, I BLAME MY IGNORANCE ON ALL OF YOU!
 
I have not seen the show, but started reading the book this morning on the train while on my way to work.

I had a weird semi-paranoid experience while reading the first chapters and I had to post about it here to get it out of my system ... The following is a display of how my crazy mind was working this morning and nothing else.

I had just sat down in my seat and opened the book when a bunch of people attending a Geological Conference, (I know because a family member is there too, and they had admittance cards saying so), entered and started filling up the remaining seats.

A pair of men from the Middle East sat down next to me and they started talking to each other. During their conversation the guy next to me was constantly looking into my lap (no, because of the book, you fags) and I got a sneaking suspicion that he was from Iraq and was not very happy with what he was reading. (I am reading it in English, not Norwegian.)

Now, whether he was reading or not and what he might have thought about what he was reading is not the point of this post, but I suddenly had a strange urge to tell him why I was reading the book.

I had the feeling he was reading the intro and thinking that I was a war monging adrenaline freak, sitting there reveling in the details. I could picture him despising me for having the nerve to keep reading the book while he was sitting next to me. I felt bad for potentially hurting his/their feelings, and for perhaps being rude by reading the book in the first place.

I wanted to tell him I was reading it to learn more about how the people involved in such a situation react, how they communicate and how they act in terms of group theories, stress etc from a psychological point of view. I wanted to let him know that I would gladly read books written by Iraqis too, and was only reading this particular book at this particular time because I had just finished an Andy McNab book and some guys at NMA had been posting about this one and the following series.

I wanted to explain that I was not taking sides in the conflict; I was merely trying to educate myself about the war and thus showing an interest he perhaps should appreciate even. After slightly pondering if I should put the book away I decided not to, and thus I was reading for 7 minutes while he was staring into the book and talking to his friend before the exited the train (at their stop - not because of me and my book) and left me to my reading.

I realize he was probably looking at my crotch and that their conversation had nothing to do with the book, but probably revolved around the Congress or my crotch, but still; it was a weird way to start the day.
 
Daimyo said:
I have not seen the show, but started reading the book this morning on the train while on my way to work.

I had a weird semi-paranoid experience while reading the first chapters and I had to post about it here to get it out of my system ... The following is a display of how my crazy mind was working this morning and nothing else.

I had just sat down in my seat and opened the book when a bunch of people attending a Geological Conference, (I know because a family member is there too, and they had admittance cards saying so), entered and started filling up the remaining seats.

A pair of men from the Middle East sat down next to me and they started talking to each other. During their conversation the guy next to me was constantly looking into my lap (no, because of the book, you fags) and I got a sneaking suspicion that he was from Iraq and was not very happy with what he was reading. (I am reading it in English, not Norwegian.)

Now, whether he was reading or not and what he might have thought about what he was reading is not the point of this post, but I suddenly had a strange urge to tell him why I was reading the book.

I had the feeling he was reading the intro and thinking that I was a war monging adrenaline freak, sitting there reveling in the details. I could picture him despising me for having the nerve to keep reading the book while he was sitting next to me. I felt bad for potentially hurting his/their feelings, and for perhaps being rude by reading the book in the first place.

I wanted to tell him I was reading it to learn more about how the people involved in such a situation react, how they communicate and how they act in terms of group theories, stress etc from a psychological point of view. I wanted to let him know that I would gladly read books written by Iraqis too, and was only reading this particular book at this particular time because I had just finished an Andy McNab book and some guys at NMA had been posting about this one and the following series.

I wanted to explain that I was not taking sides in the conflict; I was merely trying to educate myself about the war and thus showing an interest he perhaps should appreciate even. After slightly pondering if I should put the book away I decided not to, and thus I was reading for 7 minutes while he was staring into the book and talking to his friend before the exited the train (at their stop - not because of me and my book) and left me to my reading.

I realize he was probably looking at my crotch and that their conversation had nothing to do with the book, but probably revolved around the Congress or my crotch, but still; it was a weird way to start the day.
Click to expand...

Use your freedom! You were sat there first, so even if he didn't like what he saw he could have still left and went suck a fuck. Never justify yourself, it's a sign of weakness. It's not as if you were reading "Mein Kampf" in front of a jew family.

And if he was staring at your crotch well... huh... you could have put your book on it... but you kept reading... so it proves that you just liked the idea of the guy staring at your crotch... which makes you a pervert...hehe, so you're the fag now dog!

P.S : Yeah Zaron, I have just realized that I'm in accordance with Godwin's law. I'm just a puppet :shock: .
 
Daimyo said:
I have not seen the show, but started reading the book this morning on the train while on my way to work.

I had a weird semi-paranoid experience while reading the first chapters and I had to post about it here to get it out of my system ... The following is a display of how my crazy mind was working this morning and nothing else.

I had just sat down in my seat and opened the book when a bunch of people attending a Geological Conference, (I know because a family member is there too, and they had admittance cards saying so), entered and started filling up the remaining seats.

A pair of men from the Middle East sat down next to me and they started talking to each other. During their conversation the guy next to me was constantly looking into my lap (no, because of the book, you fags) and I got a sneaking suspicion that he was from Iraq and was not very happy with what he was reading. (I am reading it in English, not Norwegian.)

Now, whether he was reading or not and what he might have thought about what he was reading is not the point of this post, but I suddenly had a strange urge to tell him why I was reading the book.

I had the feeling he was reading the intro and thinking that I was a war monging adrenaline freak, sitting there reveling in the details. I could picture him despising me for having the nerve to keep reading the book while he was sitting next to me. I felt bad for potentially hurting his/their feelings, and for perhaps being rude by reading the book in the first place.

I wanted to tell him I was reading it to learn more about how the people involved in such a situation react, how they communicate and how they act in terms of group theories, stress etc from a psychological point of view. I wanted to let him know that I would gladly read books written by Iraqis too, and was only reading this particular book at this particular time because I had just finished an Andy McNab book and some guys at NMA had been posting about this one and the following series.

I wanted to explain that I was not taking sides in the conflict; I was merely trying to educate myself about the war and thus showing an interest he perhaps should appreciate even. After slightly pondering if I should put the book away I decided not to, and thus I was reading for 7 minutes while he was staring into the book and talking to his friend before the exited the train (at their stop - not because of me and my book) and left me to my reading.

I realize he was probably looking at my crotch and that their conversation had nothing to do with the book, but probably revolved around the Congress or my crotch, but still; it was a weird way to start the day.
Click to expand...

First off, I'd like to say, don't assume where they are from. Ever. That may get you into a fiery mess if you ever did talk to them.

Second, don't worry about it. You have the right to read any information you want and you do not need permission to read it.

If they want to talk to you about it, you can explain why. You'll likely never see them again nor would it likely matter what they think of you.
 
I'm disappointed, Ah Teen.

I thought you'd write "no, he was probably staring at your crotch"
 
Persons character in the show makes his comment even more fun than in the book.

*Spoiler*


"My team leder here, sergeant colbert, was born a hebrew and remains a practicing christ-killer"
 
McRae said:
And if he was staring at your crotch well... huh... you could have put your book on it... but you kept reading... so it proves that you just liked the idea of the guy staring at your crotch... which makes you a pervert...hehe, so you're the fag now dog!
Click to expand...

As I already had the book in my lap, I suspect he must have had x-ray vision.

Damn those Middle-Eastern-X-Ray-vision-crotch-googling special agents!
 
Daimyo said:
As I already had the book in my lap, I suspect he must have had x-ray vision.

Damn those Middle-Eastern-X-Ray-vision-crotch-googling special agents!
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. X-Ray vision is a ghey stuff :

 
Ah-Teen- the others have responded about the objectivity of the book. That it is non-fiction from a witness who actually takes a lot of time to get to know his troops. In that sense, I have admit I have a lot of confidence in the show as well, as the producers where the same guys who did the Wire and contributed to both the Corner and Homicide- two shows that were based on life in Baltimore. The central plot of the Wire is actually based on a real life investigative case.

But in response to two points.

You can't do math. We lose 50,000 per year of a population of 300.000,000 in auto accidents. Compare that to roughly 1,000 a year dead of a 4 year war, of an occupation of about 150,000.

Your chances of dieing in Iraq are still pretty small, 1/150 but much migher than the likelihood of dieing in a car accident. 5/30000. Yes, more die in the US, but in proportion? No. If we lost the same proportion of people on the road in the US as we do in Iraq, we'd be losing 2 million of 300 million per year.

So yes, more Americans die on roads than in Iraq, but your chances of dieing in Iraq are much higher than driving in the US.

As for officers-
I am not saying that officers are inhuman, only that they act rationally for their self interest. Their self-interest is not to protect their troops all the time, but rather, to succeed in their mission, to show aggressiveness to get promotion, and to follow orders. War is a bloody business- and I think a fair number of officers will agree that "to make an omelet, you got to break some eggs."

Whether you join the military or not, depends if you are willing to be one of those eggs.

That a lot of people join the military thinking that their officer is going to be like Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, is foolish. Most officers are inexperience at war until they actually do it. But gaining experience means making mistakes, and in war, that means losing lives.

Or do you think this is naive?
 
welsh said:
You can't do math. We lose 50,000 per year of a population of 300.000,000 in auto accidents. Compare that to roughly 1,000 a year dead of a 4 year war, of an occupation of about 150,000.

Your chances of dieing in Iraq are still pretty small, 1/150 but much migher than the likelihood of dieing in a car accident. 5/30000. Yes, more die in the US, but in proportion? No. If we lost the same proportion of people on the road in the US as we do in Iraq, we'd be losing 2 million of 300 million per year.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if you should include the entire US population in the auto accidents category. Maybe you should narrow it down to those who drive - or those who are frequently passengers in vehicles. There is a large number of people who don't drive.


Either way, if the probability of dying is so low in either case - is it really worth splitting hairs over? Does it really matter if your more likey to die getting struck by lighting or being in a plane crash (I don't know which is actually more likely)? Both scenarios are ridiculously uncommon.
 
Your chances of being involved in an aircraft accident are about 1 in 11 million. Though the chances of being struck by lightning are estimated at 1 in 700000.
 
welsh said:
Ah-Teen- the others have responded about the objectivity of the book. That it is non-fiction from a witness who actually takes a lot of time to get to know his troops. In that sense, I have admit I have a lot of confidence in the show as well, as the producers where the same guys who did the Wire and contributed to both the Corner and Homicide- two shows that were based on life in Baltimore. The central plot of the Wire is actually based on a real life investigative case.
Click to expand...

One of The Wire's uniqe strong points was it's ability to tell the story from both sides, not favourizing the cops or the criminals.

It will be interesting to see if the "Generation Kill" show shows us the officers' versions too as the book is written from a soldier/reporter point of view.

Any comments on this from those who are watching the show?
 
Not sure. One of the problems is that only Lt Flick is really given a lot of attention. The other platoon leader But most of the officers focused on -

Capt America, Godfather and Encino Man.

These fellows are either nuts, incompetent, or driven by prestige and glory.

@Ah-Teen - as for the casualty rate- wasn't that known when we entered into this war? Or predictable when we demobilized the Iraqi military? I mean, how many wars in the middle east have we seen where this happens? Which goes back to the incompetence of command. The mistakes of this war are both partly the result of the military on the ground, and of command (up to the president) for failing to realize what they were getting the country into.

Is the military meaningful- depends on what you define in meaning? If it is to preserve US security, yes. Is that what's being done in Iraq? I doubt it. Rather, it seems a drain on the national treasury and human life- when we need to be investing in more important endeavors and resolving some deep structural problems.
 
While on the subject of Generation Kill:

---------Spoiler alert ----------

I remember the book talking about snipers taking out people with binoculars and cell phones etc to stop mortar attacks, and also the book tells about a lot of kills where "when in doubt - shoot" is the golden rule.

In april this year, one such incident was caught on tape from Israel and here is the official news piece from Reuters:

WARNING: contains actual death and gore ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOhlUdcgqo[/youtube]

Shit happens. Collateral damage is a bitch, but the armed forces cannot avoid this from time to time ... (Edit: This particular event is not collateral damage as such, but in the book there are several reports of both collateral damage, wrong targeting and unfortunate kills - which in the end all affect the soldiers in some way or another)

I did not post this to start a "military action or not" discussion and completely derail this thread. I just remembered the book when this news piece about how the tank crew won't be charged was posted in a Norwegian paper today:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/08/13/543497.html

Edit: Bottom line is these things happen, and while it is unfortunate it is also almost impossible to avoid.

I can imagine what the shouldered camera facing the tank looked like to the crew inside ...
Moderators; if this post is deemed inappropriate in any way just delete it or empty it.
 
Looks like the tank took the shot. Thing is- notice the level of brush on either side of the road? I suspect that the tank didn't see the markings that this was a TV crew. I wonder if they thought the camera was a antitank launcher.
 
welsh said:
Looks like the tank took the shot. Thing is- notice the level of brush on either side of the road? I suspect that the tank didn't see the markings that this was a TV crew. I wonder if they thought the camera was a antitank launcher.
Click to expand...

I completely agree - that was my idea too - The car is hidden from the tank's view and the camera would absolutely look like something else to the tank crew.

Again - did not post to debate whether or not the crew should be punished (in my mind it was an understandable mistake given the situation) ...

Just saw the news and thought "Hey, I just read about similar situations in "Generation Kill""
 
Thing is- this kind of thing might be predictable and understandable as one of the mistakes that happen in war. Whether it is forgiveable or pardonable, at the end, there are people who died because someone made a mistake, however reasonable it might be. This is a predictable cost of war and every time a country goes to war or continues to operate in a state of war, we can predict these types of tragedies to happen as well as the consequences that will follow.

Therefore, this leads to a second set of questions- the whether the country should go to war in the first place, and, once initiated, is that war being prosecuted in a manner that best protects human life.

In a few episodes of Generation Kill the soldiers observe what they anticipate might be a threat. That's normal given insecurity and danger of war. Sometimes they misjudge what they see. Is that an armored column in the desert... no its a town but looks strange because of an optical illusion. Is that an RPG tube coming out of that brush... no that's a pipe.

Other times, the marine recon troops have eyes on a potential target and yet see nothing belligerent. At least on four occassions US marines have hit targets that showed no evidence of being belligerent or hostile. Twice the marines have attacked structures in which children and women were clearly visible, twice marines have fired on civilians despite there being no clear evidence that they were hostile (on the airfield attack and when Capt America shot a civilian from his humvee).

This raises a third question- the rules of engagement. Because if the rules of engagement are too liberal, and the US military forces are hititng civilian targets, the consequences will be to increase opposition to the US occupation, and more violence will result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top