The goat herders - Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion

[–] GameDude 9 years ago

They come up with this idea but say they would likely freeze/starve to death or be eaten by wildlife.

reply

As the OP said, they weren't that far from the village so eventually someone would've notice they were missing and gone looking for them. The old man was even carrying a Taliban walkie-talkie so his absence i.e radio silence) might be noticed sooner!

Tying them up was definitely the best of the 3 options.

reply

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

For the 1000th time they neither had ANY type of cord In Real Life nor did they have flex-cuffs as erroneously shown in the movie.

JUST TO INFORM EVERY POSTER ON THIS THREAD THEY HAD NO ROPE NOR FLEX-CUFFS THAT WERE ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN IN THE MOVIE.
Page236 Lone Survivor
"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."

So basically with nothing to restrain them with they would have had to have frog marched them at gunpoint to a new helo LZ once they re-established Comms for an exfil. However what happens if one of the teenage goat herders makes a run for it? Shoot him in the back? That would be great for the Taliban: "SEALs shoot unarmed teenage fleeing goat herder in the back". Or they give chase, catch him, ruff him up a bit so he doesn't try it again...

There's your options with NO CORD or FLEX-CUFFS!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] jmaybay 9 years ago

This is good information. Thank you for it however! There is no reason for them to have even brought it up or mentioned it in the movie. And since they did mention tying them up in the movie they should have said this answer instead of the one they gave about tying them up being a bad idea due to weather, wildlife and starvation. Cause anyone else knows if you tell me it's me dying or you dying by some other hand that isn't mine? Your loss not mine.

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

For the 1000th time they neither had ANY type of cord In Real Life nor did they have flex-cuffs as erroneously shown in the movie.

This is not a valid excuse. As soldiers, they should've been carrying some cord as part of a basic survival kit. Failing that, they should've been able to improvise something using clothing/gear.

The idea was to buy a few more hours/days to escape undetected, so the bindings didn't need to hold for a long time, just slow them down for long enough.

reply

[–] SuperSanity 9 years ago

Does it help at all that they weren't soldiers?

There is, unseen by most, an underworld...a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

Huh?

reply

[–] BlackiesDad 9 years ago

I haven't read the book, but here, doesn't Luttrell specifically say that they DID ziptie them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxmf5lbsEEU&list=PLx8Zowf4Z_mZNe4YpDU2dNGGnh2CApEHU&index=2

reply

[–] jinmbean 9 years ago

u make it read like more then one teenage shepherd was captured by them. according to the book, a total of three shepherds, two elders and one 14 year old male, are who encountered them. so yes, you march those *beep* over to your extraction point. and yeah, one those make a break for it u light that turban sporting deuce up. problem solved, three good ole boys lives spared.

Maybe I should get, get me, find me a script with a retarded slave then I get me the oscar.

reply

[–] chackers 8 years ago

Tell 'em, bubblenator: Jiminy Christmas, people: for the last time, they didn't have anything to tie up the goat herders with. Page236 Lone Survivor: "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." Can't you READ?! You shouldn't go to a movie if you haven't read the book first! Duh. Don't you know how cinema works?

reply

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

what about the rope from the goats? the leash or whatever

reply

[–] Monsieur_Rioux 8 years ago

"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."
........................................
In the time they took (in the movie) to argue over this they could have shredded some sleeves or something and tied them in such a way it would have at least hampered the speed with which they could return to the village.

reply

[–] ljshorts 9 years ago

Plus, it looks bad. To have just left them tied up to potentially die, the Taliban would not have been happy. I think the goal was to abandon the mission without causing any excuse for hostility.

I was thinking, couldn't they have just taken them to an LZ or at least a radio signal until they receive orders and/or get out safely? Also if the Taliban noticed they went missing and came after them, the SEALs would have hostages and a means for escape? Or is there a rule against that?

reply

[–] joewritesonasia 9 years ago

I am fairly certain that 'keeping the Taliban happy' was not on the 'To Do' list of the American Forces in Afghanistan.

reply

[–] HockeyFan91 9 years ago

I am fairly certain that 'keeping the Taliban happy' was not on the 'To Do' list of the American Forces in Afghanistan.

Amen Brother.

OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!

reply

[–] Flinstone 9 years ago

50/50 change that somebody would find them. Remember that, if some foreign soldier ties you to a tree.

"Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs..."

reply

[–] burzinb 9 years ago

I agree. It was a truly moronic idea to let the goatherds off like that.

If they didn't have ropes, they could have made some from trees etc. They were Navy Seals right? They have been taught to live off the land.

They could have taken the guys with them and then released them when help was on its way. Or taken one of them and tied up the other two.

I thought it was a real stupid idea to let them go just like that.

reply

[–] SuperSanity 9 years ago

Yeah. Let's get out of here fats but take this old man and kid with us. Real smart.

And if one of them made a break for it? Imagine the headlines "SEALs shoot fleeing teen/child/old man!"

There is, unseen by most, an underworld...a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...

reply

[–] codjohn 9 years ago

Let's be honest. Do we honestly think that a civilian would be able to outrun a SEAL?

reply

[–] Flinstone 9 years ago

Civilian knows the terrain UNLIKE SEALs. Civilian doesn´t have plus 90 pounds of gear UNLIKE SEALs. Civilians in there were customed to mountain climate UNLIKE SEALs.

"Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs..."

reply

[–] adrianhertz 9 years ago

and the worst part is that that happened in real life

reply

[–] davcalla777 9 years ago

Those seals did have plastic hand ties, they could've tied each one hand to hand and taken their shoes, maybe bought Latrell, Axelson, Dietz and Murphy a few hours to get away.... Even if they ran out of plastic ties, those herders had thick robes, they could've improvised, THEYRE NAVY SEALS,they think of anything in a pinch

reply

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

Those seals did have plastic hand ties

Wow you can watch an erroneous movie but can't read an accurate book  They had no *beep* "plastic hand ties" nor any 550 paracord which is a must for EVERY mission and a big faux pas!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] mistamajestyk 9 years ago

I thought I remembered hearing Luttrell in one of his public speaking roles describe how they considered (as ridiculous as he admitted it was) "zip tying" the goats and the herders, and then leaving the area? I could be wrong...

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

How about:
Two of the soldiers stay to guard the goat herders.
The other two...hike up to the peak to make the call to command.
Once they are certain help is on the way, they then can let the goatherders go in however slow a fashion they choose (for example, take their shoes....or, just let the old man go, and leave the kids tied to a tree to be rescued when the old man finally makes it down the mountain). But the main point is....there were 4 soldiers. Two could watch the goat herders.....the other two could hike up to the peak to make the phone call. Why.....doesn't.....anyone.....on.....these....boards.....think....of.....this?????

reply

[–] mistamajestyk 9 years ago

I don't think splitting up the team would have been a better idea.
What if more people come up from the town while two guys are hiking to make the call?
What if an enemy patrol were to arrive? Now, instead of a four man force, you're down to two trying to fend off whatever comes at them.

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

That would be a calculated risk.
But in an un-winnable quandry....I'd say guarding the (goat herders) with 2 soldiers while the other 2 make the call would probably be their best option--though certainly not perfect.

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

This assumes neither pair are detected. If either are then they are even worse off than before!

reply

[–] ipeedaily 8 years ago

Exactly!!! As I posted elsewhere:

Should have offed them but as they did the next best option would have been to have tied them all together by the legs (like a chain gang) and tightly tied their hands & bound to their bodies.....This way, they could not move quickly and would be limited by the old man.

This would have given them much more time and the kid running and jumping down the mountain would not have been able to do so....instead of several minutes to get back to Taliban camp it would have taken them hours.

Another possibility would be to tie the two young ones to a tree and let the old man go....they still would have in effect let them go but it would have taken him a long time to get back for help/reporting to enemy.

reply

[–] joplinschange 9 years ago

After seeing the movie I was conflicted. After reading the book I completely agree with Marcus...we should trust our men and women who are sent into harm's way to make judgement calls when in combat situations.

If we don't trust them to make sound decisions then we shouldn't send them into life or death situations in the first place.

"F the Geneva Convention!"

reply

[–] bigcat20 9 years ago

I remember hearing news reports about how incredible the Afghan people were at navigating mountainous terrain. Nobody could move as quickly and quietly as they do, I guess im just surprised in that scene is that the Seals didn't think of this when they decided to let them go.

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

There is no trust issue here. These men are not accountable to joe public for their actions. The story is only public knowledge because they chose to tell it!

Except in unusual circumstances, such decisions will always need to be made by men on the ground because they will have the best information available but also because communications are never completely reliable and ultimately it is their lives at stake!

The only questions to ask are did they act professionally and were they given the proper training, equipment and intel. With US SF the problem is usually the last.

reply

[–] NedRierson 9 years ago

There are two options:

#1 Tie them up

#2 Take them with you

The mission was compromised once the goat herders showed up, so if you don't have anything to tie them up with, you take them with you. Once you are picked up, you let them go.

This is what I was told by two decorated Rangers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Letting them go would never have been an option, ever.

reply

[–] luchod-819-75242 9 years ago

So, you are basically kidnaping them, wich is clearly not against the Rules of Engagement. Just for a second, imagine that YOU are the goat herder.. would you be delighted to be restrained against your will? Would you not complain to the authorities about that? What if you got injured on the way back?

If you tie them, wolves could eat them, so why the lives or americans means more than the lives of two innocent civilians?