MovieChat Forums > Restrepo (2010) Discussion > That Cow Is Not A Big Deal

That Cow Is Not A Big Deal


This is war. It got caught all by itself. No one helped it out to get stuck in the wire. So they ate it. End of story.

reply

It's not a big deal to you but it is to the guy who owned it because that is a form of livelihood for him (milk, meat etc).. or some peoples religious beliefs who consider certain animals very sacred to them.

The soldiers said it got caught in the wire and they put it out of its misery but maybe that's just a lie they came up with to coverup them purposely killing it to provide food for them. There is a scene when they are in the mess tent where one soldier praises the cook for cooking up that 'good' cow.

If you're stuck in the mountains for 15 months eating army rations, a nice steak or some burgers is going to be a nice treat don't you think ... very convenient when a cow gets 'trapped' in some protective wire.


reply

I'm so Happy your stuck at home so you can judge the people over there, Your a moron it happened on film and maybe you should head over and help the farmer keep his livestock from getting in the way, I'm sure he would appreciate that !!!

reply

I see no issue killing a cow for food in that exact situation... caught in a razor wire fence or not. Militaries from all over the world do far worse things on a daily basis and few seem to make a fuss in the western world... but when the American, British, Etc military kills a cow or looks at someone wrong it becomes a huge travesty. The ones who ultimately suffer are our troops. They can't even fire at possible mosques anymore even if they're taking fire from the 20 enemy combatants hiding inside. I rarely hear anyone complain about what the Russians do in Chechnya or what the Chinese do in Tibet.

Just to be clear... I'm not trying to attack you or your opinion. Just making a point.

reply

So what the russians do in Chechnya or chinese in Tibet justifies what these people do?
You can justify anything this way.

reply

I rarely hear anyone complain about what the Russians do in Chechnya or what the Chinese do in Tibet.

So one guy who complains about Americans killing a cow on imdb is now more prevalent than the world media which constantly reports about the actions committed by Russians in Chechnya and the Chinese in Tibet.

I can assure you, good sir, that no one who hasn't watched Restrepo, would even know about the 'cow situation, as compared to the situation in Tibet.

but when the American, British, Etc military kills a cow or looks at someone wrong it becomes a huge travesty.

I believe that when ANY military commits horrible actions, it would be considered a travesty - American forces aren't the only ones targeted by the media, news reporters will do anything to get dirt on others because controversial tabloid headlines = PROFIT $$$

reply

I think the point is that UK/US forces are held to a higher account than others because of the ideal that they (rightly or wrongly) claim to represent. The US has the world's biggest professional army and more is expected of them (again, rightly or wrongly)

reply

"I rarely hear anyone complain about what the Russians do in Chechnya or what the Chinese do in Tibet."

Hey, I'm with you on that. I am American and I feel those are unjust occupations. Everytime I hear a Han Chinese say Tibet needs China because Tibet was/is so backwards economically, I want to flip out. Does China need Tibet, for Tibet's natural resources and potential for hydroelectricity?? If they would just admit that is why they occupied the nation for decades, I might gain a slight amount of respect for the Chinese government.

reply

[deleted]

3 soldiers died within the making of this film and people are up in arms about the cow. Silly





“Dinsdale, He was a nice boy...... He nailed my head to a coffee table.”

reply

[deleted]

^^^ Hence the entire situation in the middle east in the first place.

American insensitivity in foreign wars is probably doing more harm to the U.S themselves than the taliban/al qaeda etc.

They need to look at it objectively - What is happening here, why are they not being condemned for invading countries? Because they're supposedly doing it for the good of the people.....Where is this good? Is it in the dead cow? The short tempered arrogance of the confused american officer?

Bottom line is, you cant send in soldiers to conduct a humanitarian campaign. As soon as you send in SOLDIERS, you're sending in people that are trained to kill....Theyre not trained to help these people, they not even trained to show them any respect or identify with their suffering....So what is this forces real objective here?

To rid the land of enemy elements, right?.....In the situation of Afghanistan - How is this accomplished? By getting the locals on your side, and winning hearts and minds...and right there is the cycle of self-destruction I see in this campaign.

They need peacekeepers, healthcare workers, engineers, people to build infrastructure, people that are sensitive to their culture and aware of their traits, their values their religion....That should be the frontline in terms of dealing with locals and winning over hearts and minds. The soldiers should merely be securing the people that can allow that to happen, they themselves shouldnt be dealing with locals on such a broad level, theyre not trained to do it effectively - in the very important way it should be done.

reply

WTF ??? Huh ?

The mission was to provide protection/support for the engineers to build a paved road between the villages in the valley and the river region which would have given the locals a better shot at upgrading their standard of living - something better than what the Taliban / war lords had to offer. Unfortunately the locals were accustomed to hustling from whomever offered the higher price - even if it meant working against their communities best interests. This valley was the Taliban's 'turf'. Much like the police here going into a gang controlled community to 'clean it up', some residents are going to be for it (hopefully the majority) but some are gonna look out only for themselves, assisting the gangs out of fear, for protection or money. Remember the old guy and the young dude they detained ? The plan was to win 'the hearts and minds' by providing more legit. opportunities for the families to earn etc., so the less likely the locals would be to work with the Taliban, terrorists and war lords who are only up to no good. On paper it looked great.

About the damn cow:

1. The cow is sacred in INDIA. The village elders in this situation said our guys killing the cow was 'illegal', not some sacrilegious practice.
2.Take off your 'anti war' hat and put on your 'PITA/Sarah McLaughlin/SPCA' hat and realize that the RIGHT thing to do when you come across a suffering animal is to put it out of its freakin' misery, no ?
3. And its 'a sin' to let the meat just rot for cryin' out loud ! So they did the right thing and consumed the beef while it was still fresh - beef starts to rot fairly quickly.
4. The 'peace loving' local elders were trying to shake down our military officer(s) over the cow incident. They wanted MONEY to settle the matter rather than FOOD (which they were offered). Do you think that if it was all about 'religion' MONEY would be the answer ? I would think that offering food to be distributed amongst the poor villagers would be the right thing to do rather than the elders pocketing the money. You can eat the food but not the money.
And the ONLY reason why our guys offered what they did was to be WAY over on the hearts/minds side of the equation. If a neighbors cow wandered into your fence and got itself stuck/shredded, just how far would you be willing to take the 'I feel bad, I'd like to make it up to you' bs ? I'd bet that if your neighbor came 'round demanding money you'd get your back up and tell him/them "Its MY fault because your dumb ass cow wandered into my fence ? You owe ME money for the damage to my FENCE - see ya in court !" At least they tried to do the right thing and offer them good food in return. Clearly the friendly 'neighbors' were looking for a 'pay day'. And they certainly 'got even' for the incidents didn't they ?

Unlike the Taliban, our troops were trying to better life better for these folks. Those in the village who were killed accidentally weren't the intended targets but weren't completely innocent either. Ya swim with sharks, yer gonna get bit.


As far as the 'go in there and kick ass like WWII' comments go - there are so few similarities between Afghanistan ('Nam too) and Germany/Japan WWII that they're not even comparable. Not to mention nukes are on the table now too. They played a roll at the end of WWII but nobody but us had them.
This 'win the hearts and minds' strategy by the US is unique (at least, off the top of my head, I believe so). Its not the same war the Soviets waged. The US is unique in that we don't go to war to conquer/plunder (no matter what the 'no blood for oil' crowd thinks). And, to the best of my knowledge, we've always assisted our enemies rebuild a better country - until recently I guess. It takes the cooperation of the other half to make it work but at least we're willing to do our part.
Unfortunately, in this area of the world, we're finding out the hard way that you can only lead a horse to water...
'Tis such a shame and hindsight is 20/20.

If ya get another chance, listen again, closely this time, to Dan Kearney - especially during the first 15 minutes.

reply

Before I commence my actual reaction, I would like to say that I am not in the position to judge the behaviour of the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am no proponent of any war, but it would be inconsiderate to blame the soldiers for it, as they are merely doing their job in an often very hostile environment. Even though they can expect something like that to happen when they join the army, it is not them who started the war and I strongly believe that war and violent conflicts brings up the worst in any person, especially one trained to kill and to then feel no regret or remorse*.

Ironman54, even though I can agree with some of the things you point out, you seem to misjudge the situation and draw an equally false comparison in this discussion. I am rather sure -based on their behaviour and choice of words**- that the American soldiers are not considering themselves the neighbours of the Afghanis, while in return they are not considered as such by the Afghanis.
In fact, the Americans 'took the land' upon which they built their OP Restrepo, including the barbed wire that ultimately caused the cow's death, based on the American belief of freedom and morals. It might all be for a greater good, at least in the eyes of the Bush Administration, but what good is that to an Afghan elder whose main -perhaps only- source for milk, food, fuel and warmth has just been shot and eaten by American soldiers? Would you not complain and demand money -instead of rice- from the North Korean army, had they chosen to invade your country to deliver you from capitalism, built up an outpost right next to your house and got your cow killed?

Even though I can imagine that it is a very uneasy situation for an American soldier to be in hostile territory on a mission to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Afghan people, while you were trained to 'take their hearts and minds' (as one of the soldiers strikingly pointed out), and based on what I saw in this documentary***, it is hard to say that they were doing such a good job in befriending the people of the Korengal valley. Again, it is inconsiderate to blame the soldiers for this, but that does not mean that they are not responsible for the way they are acting towards the locals.


*As was shown towards the end of the meeting, when the soldiers at OP Restrepo describe how an enemy soldier gets "blast to pieces" by their gunfire, chuckling in awe.

**In one of the Shura meetings, Kearney bluntly tells one of the Afghan elders that "he doesn't *beep* care" about some Abdul Mohammed -if I remember correct. In other meetings, Kearney is equally offensive in his attitude towards the Afghan elders, frequently using the word *beep* throughout his sentences. Now, the Afghan elders might not understand what he is saying, and hopefully the translator does not translate Kearney's sentences word-for-word, but it is rather obvious that Kearney has very little respect for the Afghan elders. Would he talk like that in front of his parents?

***Including the words that Kearney spoke about the incident in which 5 locals were killed and several women and children were wounded.

reply

First worlders may not understand it fully, but a cow is not just burger to them. It was the man's livelihood. The cow's weight in beans? It's like Colombus offering trinkets for gold or something all over again.

$400 is also actually just about the right price for a cow. Maybe not in the US where cows are almost literally manufactured on an assembly line. But in subsistence agricultural economies, a single cow IS worth that much. As for wanting money, duude. These aren't *beep* tribals in the Amazon. What would you want if someone shot your cow? And yes it's "illegal" in the sense, that you don't just walk over and eat someone else's cow and pretend it didn't happen, war or no war. Would you do that to your neighbor back home? No, right?

The elders were not even demanding it. Why would they? They had no power to demand anything. Through the course of the movie you come to realize that they've tried to raise the matter more than a few times already through the Shuras. When those three or four elders finally showed up at Restrepo to talk directly to the soldiers who ate it, you could sense the trepidation and the atmosphere of "they're not going to listen anyway" from all of them. Even fear, as the Americans have already demonstrated that they are quite capable of making someone disappear if they want to. And they were right, they got offered beans ffs. Beans for a cow.

Yes, a cow pales in comparison to the deaths of three soldiers in the course of the film. But the cow isn't the issue. It's the fact that by simply shrugging off the cow, they were worsening the already hostile impression they're giving to the villagers. Villagers who know where the Taliban are. And villagers who might have been given the courage to shrug off the death threats and warned the soldiers in advance of the ambushes, if they felt enough that the Americans were truly there to help.

And before anyone calls me a hypocrite because I wasn't there or anything. I grew up in a third world country in pretty much similar conditions as those guys, though not quite as abject. Watching how clumsily the soldiers treated the civilians was teeth-gritting. I could pretty easily imagine myself in the Afghani's shoes, and it was weird how the soldiers didn't seem to be capable of doing that.

Even during the Shuras for example. All that cussing! At elders of all people, not mindful of the fact that given the ubiquitousness of western media, even goatherders in Afghanistan probably know what "*beep*" means. Another example is the very visible disdain one of them was displaying when they interrogated that shepherd with the watch. The one who reassured his wife while looking like he was about to puke out of fear. And you could pretty much read what the Afghanis were thinking at the point after they just strafed a household with women and children and killed five men (who as far as I can gather, were never proven to be with the Mujahideen). The conversation was civil, but that old guy's fury was quite obvious in his eyes when he asked the men to point out which of the five were Taliban. I was already expecting it by the time they got intel that the elders were now supporting jihad. It was inevitable.

No respect, no empathy, no nothing. They treated the Afghanis like retarded children. Like mere annoyances who get in the way of war, instead of the actual victims of the crossfire. A little sensitivity training would go a long way here.

reply

"They need peacekeepers, healthcare workers, engineers, people to build infrastructure, people that are sensitive to their culture and aware of their traits, their values their religion....That should be the frontline in terms of dealing with locals and winning over hearts and minds. The soldiers should merely be securing the people that can allow that to happen, they themselves shouldnt be dealing with locals on such a broad level, theyre not trained to do it effectively - in the very important way it should be done"

So who is supposed to do that? Whoare the people that are sensitive to their culture and aware of their traits? Do you suggest just having a bunch of Christians on a mission who will be peaceful towards all? Construction and road workers? Who is supposed to do this? Because if those or any group other than military went in there they would die. Period. They bascially sent in the best that they could into that area. It is one of the most dangerous areas the US military has been in in decades.

In order to provide those services you need to have security. Without security it would be impossible for anything to get done. And yes you need help from the locals but when the locals hustle and work towards killing you then what are you uspposed to do?

They are trained to deal with the locals. Thats what a lot of higher level officers and NCOs are trained to do now.







I may not agree with what you say, but I am prepared to fight and die for your right to say it.

reply

It is when a group of soldiers that is fighting war against something you never saw or cared about living in your mountains comes and kills your only food supply leaving you to the slow death of starvation.

----------
I've been vandalized by Elvis! -Ernest, Ernest Goes to Jail (1990)

reply

They should have paid the $400 bucks. Did they expect free streak dinners? Geez just gather up some money, and keep the peace with the locals.

reply

..because it was central to a very important part of the mission, keeping and/or trying to win over the locals and keep them onside.

Most commentators would agree that's it just isn't feasible or possible to be successful in such a mission by force of arms alone.

If you dis them they will be resentful and less inclined to be receptive to your ideals and approaches. as well as much more likely to sympathise with the opposition.

They potentially just undermined their very own efforts with such responses.



- "Yeehaaa, just like f%^cking Saigon eh slick"?
- "I was in junior high dickhead"!

reply

"It is when a group of soldiers that is fighting war against something you never saw or cared about living in your mountains comes and kills your only food supply leaving you to the slow death of starvation. "

Now that is just plain dumb. Those elders, villagers, and everyone in the area knew, and knows where the Taliban are.
Im pretty sure if someone moved into your backyard you would notice that too. Yes starvation when they offer grain, wheat, and other foodstuff items and money to replace the dead cow. And the military is constantly giving food to people in those regions.









I may not agree with what you say, but I am prepared to fight and die for your right to say it.

reply

Cw is a constant food source. They offered a one-time food for cow. that is not a fair exchange.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

The full story behind the cow is not told in this film. In Sebastian Junger's book _War_ (a far more in-depth accounting of the story of the Korengal Valley), the author makes it clear that the cow was only in the general vicinity of the outpost, and it was the soldiers that chased it into the concertina wire for sport. Then, when it was apparent that nothing could be done with it but put it out of its misery, it was killed and eaten.

This was a completely irresponsible thing to do and made the commander's job of negotiating for restitution that much trickier, as he well knew that it was his soldiers' fault that the cow was lost.

I do agree, though, that not every mistake we make need be taken as a catastrophe. The Army compensated the man fairly, in anyone's book (I would imagine), and both parties can and should move on.

reply

I don't think so... Beef is worth more per lb than rice or any other grain. army *beep* up but that guy should have done a better job herding his cow. So the faults on both people.

The problem in this situation is giving them money could equate to buying weapons for the enemy (which has been done before). So they offer him grains.

reply

You can also buy guns with grain. But they were offering like $50 of beans and rice for a $500 cow.

reply

[deleted]

we spent a trillion dollars on this war.

i would think that somewhere in the pentagon budget there was 400 bucks for a cow.

i mean they dropped millions of dollars of bombs on the korengal, whats wrong with paying for a cow you kill?

i think most ordinary people understand the concept. you kill a cow, you gotta pay for it. its just basic decency. the American government really undermined our troops by not paying this.

if it really is about hearts and minds... what is the guy gonna think about a job offer, from a man who wont even pay for a cow he killed?

no wonder we spent ten years there . . its a lot like vietnam. stupid eggheads in washington making *beep* decisions over and over.

reply

[deleted]

It was weird to me they didn't shoot all the people there that were living outside their base. They obviously took part in fighting when dark etc.

reply