Movie should never have revolved around Childers-Hodges

Having watched this movie several times in past years and grown to dislike it more and more, it just dawned on me the filmmakers missed out on a great opportunity to turn out a film that would have shown the stresses that wartime can have on decision-making.

The way I see it, the whole Vietnam backstory should have been shelved completely. What should have happened in the film was for the lieutenant to have refused to carry out Childers' orders while Childers himself could have rallied some of the men to fire down on the protestors below. The second half of the film and thus the court scene could have then focused on the separate story lines of the lieutenant and Childers, with the former making it clear why he could not conscientiously carry out such an order, aware of the danger he and his men were under (and how all this violated several statutes of the Geneva Conventions) while Childers would be the main individual advocating why such rules have to be broken. We wouldn't get into all this nonsense about the colonel from Vietnam, and the half dozen other subplots which the filmmakers did not bother to explore (Hodges' anger at Childers for lying to him, the ambassador's testimony, the sniper fire coming from across the building outside the embassy compound, etc.)

The audience would then have been left to ponder on which side presents a more convincing argument. To be honest though, I was hoping that Childers would have been convicted of conduct unbecoming of an officer - there seems to be no way of justifying his order to rain down on the civilians without IDing hostiles).

I pretend to work because the Soviet government pretends to pay me.