MovieChat Forums > Courage Under Fire (1996) Discussion > Was Meg Ryan's decision REALLY heroic?

Was Meg Ryan's decision REALLY heroic?

posted 13 years ago by glocktwentyseven
19 replies | jump to latest

The night of the crash, when her men are telling her they want to get the hell out of Dodge, why is she so adamant that they stay where they are? I don't see anything heroic about risking the life of 3 uninjured men, to save the life of 1 who is already on death's door. That doesn't make sense to me. I would think that if preserving the lives of the men under her command was her chief priority, then she wouldn't have forced them to give their lives to wait for medevac.

Staying put when they had the opportunity to leave made no kind of tactical sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I've got no kind of military experience whatsoever, so far be it from me to be criticizing her tactical skills. It just didn't make sense to me. Can anyone explain why the decision was worthy of a medal of honor?

[–] tbeller80 13 years ago

She received the MOH for staying behind and covering their escape the next morning.

Chief Rady wasn't on death's door; however, he was so severely injured that moving him could have killed him. He survived because CPT Walden stood firm against 3 mutineers who lost their nerve and were willing to abandon him. We (in the military) don't leave anyone behind to be killed or captured if we can help it. She felt the risk of them staying in that position was worth it to ensure Chief Rady's survival. As it turned out, they weren't in any real danger except for that brief shootout. After the rescue force showed up, she still had to remind the black soldier to carry Rady because he was about to run off on his own. She volunteered to hold off the Iraqis so they could escape. In return, they left her to die instead of making an attempt to go get her.

When someone is lost in the middle of the forest or on a mountain, dozens of people may go search for them. On occasion, some of those people are seriously injured during the search. Why do those people risk their lives when they could just leave that lost person to die?

[–] mikeyg24 13 years ago

Leave no man behind is all well and good in theory but there's also a practise in the military known as triage, a fancy way of saying cut your losses!

As it turned out, they weren't in any real danger except for that brief shootout.

YES as it turned out! She didn't know that at the time? She couldn't possibly. WE know because the movie is shown in retrospect but at the time for all she knew a whole division of Republican Guard could have been advancing on their position. She endangered the lives of her entire crew rather than risk moving one man.

If you're in the military then I just found the cure to cancer.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] tbeller80 13 years ago

Yes I'm in the Army. 12 years and counting. What are your plans for that cure for cancer?

"cut your losses!"

I seriously hope you're not in the military. While we have the means to resist, we resist. We don't freely surrender and we don't leave our people for dead or at the mercy of the enemy just because there MIGHT be some danger ahead. Maybe you haven't noticed but we tend to get into fights with groups and nations who don't care much about treating prisoners well.

As the officer in charge, it was her job to take those risks and accept the responsibilities of the results. She made a judgment call and it paid off for her troops.

[–] mikeyg24 13 years ago

I plan to cure cancer, what else? Anyway nobody said anything about freely surrendering. The exact words in the movie were 'evade and escape'. The medic in my view made it clear that their injured comrade may well die either way and since you're so fond of using how things turned out to justify your arguments it turns out he was carried to the evac like a sack of potatoes anyway.

She made a judgment call and it paid off for her troops.

Again that's my point, first of all in my book she made a guess not a judgement call and it didn't pay off as much as you seem to believe. Staying put didn't result in her decision being justified. They still lost a member of their crew only it was her not the black guy and at the time she had no idea the numbers she was dealing with. Her responsibility as far as I can see it was to get her crew to safety and treatment for an injured comrade.

Not that the whole thing isn't a moot point anyway for two reasons. First any self respecting Republican Guard unit would have brought in a mortar team.

And two, and I might get crucified for this, her actions didn't appear to be any better or less than the actions of hundreds of soldiers who didn't get the MOH.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] bpoz 12 years ago

First, the potshot at the other poster in your previous post was completely uncalled for (and inaccurate as it turns out).

As to triage vs leave no one behind, as has been stated, that was a judgment call that as the superior officer was HERS to make, not theirs.

And yes, imo, it was heroic. As has also been stated, the others didn't want to leave because they thought it was tactically better to do so. They wanted to leave because they were scared. And there most certainly was talk of surrendering to the enemy, which was not considered an option at that time by commanding brass or their leader, Karen. Her point was that they didn't know what was out there but they had a position they could guard where they were and that since Rady couldn't be moved, that was where they needed to stay. Since we know by the ones who approached their position (which they were able to defend despite Monfreis trying to start a mutiny) that there were indeed enemy troops out there, she was absolutely right in her analysis and should get credit for at least that much. You can't call it just dumb luck. She made a good case and the facts ended up supporting her 'guesses.'

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bpoz 12 years ago

Hmm, having recently re-watched an old favorite film, I came to a discussion board for movies and joined a discussion of the movie that I just re-watched. There are two reasons to do so: (1) a genuine interest in the conversation and desire to share thoughts and opinions about it and (2) a desire to address certain issues within the conversation, not necessarily specifically to any one individual but to share with anyone else who might be following the conversation.

I posted one year after you did because that’s when I watched the movie again and joined the conversation. I posted in response to your post, not necessarily to engage you personally in conversation but because my remarks were in response to what you wrote. If you no longer wish to participate in the discussion you’re not required to. But I’m pretty sure it’s open to everyone and that there isn’t an expiration date on when a person can post in a thread.

If you saw my post, not because you came to the thread to read the newer comments, but because you get notices for any new responses, you have the choice to simply ignore notices for threads you’re no longer interested in or reset your defaults in order to not be bothered by them. At any rate, such an antagonistic response seems both unnecessary and unduly hostile.

Hope you feel better soon.

[–] mikeyg24 12 years ago

Wow I caught 'Hmmm' and 'unnecessary and unduly hostile'. I'm amazed you actually took the time to write three paragraphs in the belief I was interested in anything else you had to say. In fact I didn't even read the post you replied to I just noticed it was a year later.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] bpoz 12 years ago

Oh my, not interested enough to read the post but took the time to reply. How sad. Moving along...

[–] mikeyg24 12 years ago

Ha ha yes it took me sooooooooooooo long to write that reply. You truly are an idiot.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] dolores_medina 13 years ago

"Leave no man behind is all well and good in theory but there's also a practise in the military known as triage, a fancy way of saying cut your losses!"

While there is triage, there needs to be a compelling argument that 1. The injured cannot be rescued without putting further soldiers in harm's way, and 2. The harm to those soldiers would lead to greater loss... and 3. You do all In your power to save the injured simply because it is the right thing to do. You do not leave your own behind enemy lines where torture is a possibility...

Fact is, if soldiers made a habit of turning tail, and running, and abandoning the injured because ' hey, risking MY health to save that soldier's life is not in the cards" How many recruits do you think we would have in wartime?

While there are occasions of ONE soldier choosing to give up his life for many.." the one that kjumps on the grenade to muffle the explosion with his own Body" ...There are also occasions of many turning back to find that one lost soul in the desert or wilderness.

That which unifies the platoon is that feeling of brotherhood. You do not leave men behind if you can avoid it. The first three soldiers were not performing " triage" they were cowards that first wanted to leave 1 injured man behind, and then left HER to die, because it was too risky to get her? or maybe because she just made them Look bad..and " hey we might get hurt if we go rescue her" was Just their excuse? Hey if they wanted to be safe... maybe they shouldn't have enlisted in the military???

[–] Lucy9596 12 years ago

and then left HER to die, because it was too risky to get her? or maybe because she just made them Look bad..and " hey we might get hurt if we go rescue her" was Just their excuse? Hey if they wanted to be safe... maybe they shouldn't have enlisted in the military???

They left her because they feared to get punished for mutiny. Or rather Monfriz did and the others feared him.

It’s just so sad that the variety of the world should be used as a contentious issue.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hungry_Mind 12 years ago

Let's clear up some term upfront

"Leave no man behind" is a motto, not a rule you MUST do in battlefield. In my 8 years soldiering, i can tell you this, not always you don't leave people behind.

Triage is not use that way. Triage only used in 9-Liner and Masscal, if you have enough resource to help 1 person, you will dedicate those resource to help him until he is pronounced dead.

MOH will only be given to act that goes "Above and Beyond" the course of duty.

Okay, let's goes into the question.

Captain Karen Walden is awarded the Medal of Honor for staying behind enemy line, refusing medevac and cover the retreat of fellow soldier. This act is more than enough to award the medal. In what the movie depicted, she was wounded, i cannot go down the line and say she is mortally wounded but she is wounded nonetheless. In real life she should have been the priority for evac, but she CHOOSE the stay behind to defend her troop, whether she return safely or not (in this case she wasn't) she should be warranted a MOH.

Now, going back to Evade and Escape vs Stay and fight. This is all a "Never leave anyone behind judgement" As i said before, this is not a must do, you will not get court martial if you leave a guy behind. But if you do that, you are alone in the battlefield. And in combat, if you are alone, you are as well as dead. Put yourselve in Randy place, will you want to get left behind?

[–] nateybaybee 11 years ago

I didn't see Damon's character is a part of the mutiny. He didn't really say. And no way, even if they left, would he have left the pilot behind.

She deserved the MoH, not for the whole situation, but for her act afterwards when providing cover.

Damon's character was in shock (and the final scene was in slow motion) at Monfrieze's "she's dead comment." The black guy screamed "No." The only person who didn't care was Monfrieze about anyone but himself.

[–] manofsteel4455 11 years ago

Some of the comments here just prove how more and more ignorant young people are getting in regards to the ways of the world.

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

[–] usapon 11 years ago

it is not heroic in endangering the lives of the soldiers. They should have made a stretcher and moved the wounded to a secure location.

[–] patriotpridet 10 years ago

I'm not even going to respond to this moronic post!

[–] dbryantvfx 10 years ago

yet you did