MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Ham-fisted and implausible

Ham-fisted and implausible

posted 8 years ago by crookedbill
31 replies | jump to latest

*spoiler alert*

I enjoyed the film. A "thinking man's" war movie that was both exciting and frustrating in ways that make it a worthwhile watch no matter what. However, the entire story hinged on a single implausible plot point - that a drone pilot would disobey a direct order from a superior and delay a military strike for over an hour.

I'm no military expert, but I know enough to believe that a pair of weepy drone pilots disobeying a direct order to strike on multiple high-value targets would be grounds for court-martial or at the very least remedial training, reassignment, counseling, or discharge. The entire purpose of military chain of command is to, for better or worse, take the responsibility and culpability of killing away from lower level personnel. Any hesitation on the battlefield might cost countless lives.

Furthermore, the idea that any multinational military operation would simply halt for that great length of time, based on protecting the life of a single unknown little girl seems ludicrous. And, does every military command center have a lawyer on duty reviewing and approving every action?

Another thing -

Portraying that high level American, (I can't recall if he was a politician or military guy, maybe the President?) who was in China playing ping-pong, as sort of an unfeeling cowboy douchebag in contrast with the conflicted weepy pilots, and by-the-book Brits, was incredibly ham-fisted. American politicians and military brass are ALWAYS the supreme villains in these kinds of movies. But, that character was the only plausible decision maker in the whole film.

I guess that's the point. In a liberal-minded filmmaker's mind, warfare should require protracted hand-wringing. Maybe if we meditated long enough about it, we would see the error of our ways and wage war no more. I guess we can dream.

[–] shtexas 8 years ago

I'm not going to disagree.

But, it was jarring to see all these people so far from the action (except for the one actually in the thick of things in Somalia) making (and afraid to make) life or death decisions. One from a ping pong tournament, one in his bathrobe, fresh from a bout with food poisoning. Disturbing.

[–] wooody 8 years ago

Love the term ham fisted! Anyway, I'm not saying this is correct but wasn't the American drone pilot within his authority to request a more recent (calculation..the exact term eludes me) as a result of the change of circumstances. I don't think he had a right to make the request. Again, I may be wrong.

[–] scarlz 8 years ago

The movie made it clear it was within his authority and in fact his duty, as his superior remarked that he "just thew the rulebook at a Colonel".

[–] Mod_Mark 8 years ago

I read an article on "Air Force Times", basically the pilot was asking to verify that the order was legal. Once the order was verified, he had attack the target.

If the pilot executes an illegal order, he can be brought up on charges.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

request a more recent (calculation..the exact term eludes me)

OK, the "calculation" was for the CDE, which is Collateral Damage Estimate.

The Colonel was all bent for a 45% number, which translated to about a 45% likelihood of the girl's death.
On the face of it, that might seem reasonable.

Recall the massive difference in the size of the explosions, the second being only the missile, and the first being at least the missile and two suicide vests of high explosives. Possibly also included in the first, and massive blast, would have been additional suicide vest explosives stored in the target house; not so likely, but certainly a possibility.

That unknown quantity of unknown suicide vest explosives was a large variable in the CDE.

Other things mattered as well. For instance, the apparent cinder block wall around the target house, and behind the girl. Was it built of cinder blocks and mortar only? Were the voids in the cinder blocks filled with some other material like sand, rocks, or dirt? That would allow the wall to absorb more shrapnel and blast force. Were the cinder blocks reinforced with 'rebar' and filled with concrete, making it essentially reinforced concrete, and even stronger?
Another unknown.
From the fact that some rows of the blocks remained in place, as did most of the corners, the wall was neither the weakest nor the strongest construction.

The spy "beetle" inside the house showed the interior walls seemed about one foot thick, and I remember them as irregular, not flat surfaces, suggesting they were made of stone. That is probably how one of the target individuals was able to survive the first massive explosion.

I don't mean to be graphic, but the movie showed the girl had multiple bloody spots on the back side of her body and legs. To me, that indicates the damage was from shrapnel and flying debris. Given the huge difference in the size of the first and second explosions, it seems the terrorists' explosives were the difference, and as suicide vests, probably had shrapnel mixed with the explosives.
That was still another unknown variable in the CDE calculation, and obviously a pretty significant variable.

With all those unknowns, any CDE was pretty much a wild guess.
That said, the Colonel was not wrong to supply her own number.

You may remember the highest CDE was only 80-90 INSIDE THE ROOM WITH THE VESTS AND THE MISSILE STRIKE! I have to believe that was based only on the missile, which was the one known quantity in the entire calculation.

[–] sized-2 8 years ago

Have you seen the documentary Dirty Wars?

[–] AnonymousBoy 8 years ago

I have, and kids have been collateral damage a lot of times. It's never made such huge ordeal by everyone at every part of the chain. The idea that everyone involved would be weeping and debating this for an hour couldn't be further from the truth.

[–] andibeheldapalehorse 8 years ago

It's never made such huge ordeal by everyone at every part of the chain. The idea that everyone involved would be weeping and debating this for an hour couldn't be further from the truth.

And how do you know this?

I'm the product of a fuc7ed up generation.I can't even seem to find a sunset to walk off into

[–] linus-hirschi 8 years ago

psychological impact on (certain) drone pilots and others involved can be devastating, so what his generalization might imply (they're all soulless demons!) isn't necessarily the truth. /xy off...
that also really helps the victims but their death has been sealed long before, becaue if the causal chain wasn't cast in iron, why launch a drone in the first place?

[–] AnonymousBoy 8 years ago

If Dirty Wars teaches us anything, it's that the military doesn't give enough consideration to what they're doing when they take civilian casualties as collateral damage. This film portrays the exact opposite, that everyone involved all the way to the top is extremely concerned.

[–] ptitzz 8 years ago

I haven't seen the Dirty Wars, but I've spoken to some (European) Air Force people on the subject. There is actually a massive manual regarding what they can and cannot do that they consult at all times, regarding legality of their actions and various ethical issues. This is especially true when it's in a place like Pakistan, West Bank, or in this case Kenya. And often they do pass on targets when they are located in densely populated areas/mosques/schools/whatever. Obviously that's not always the case, but as you can imagine "Bunch of islamists cooped up in a kindergarten were NOT destroyed by a US drone because of collateral damage considerations" does not quite make the headlines. There's a reason groups like ISIS use human shields.

[–] sized-2 8 years ago

It's on Netflix. Watch it. You'll learn how the war on terror will never end due to collateral damage, ever.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

I have not seen that movie, but I can refer viewers to a post Viet Nam era movie titled BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH, (I believe it had Tommy Lee Jones in it).

One of the things shown, with some subtlety, is what happens to the people of a village that changes "possession" several times. One time "owned" by the Viet Cong, the next time "owned" by the Americans and/or South Vietnamese Army. Add a few more side changes, then remember for each changing of sides, collaborators would be found, and "dealt with". The VC's and the NVA regulars were not known to be kind, or hesitant.

When that sort of thing is going on, "collateral damage" has very little meaning, due to the inevitable killings.

TMI:
Another thing that has been mentioned in this thread is the actual precision of the air-strike weapons.
In Desert Storm, pilots armed only with missiles encountered rows of SCUD missiles on trailers. If they had been carrying explosive bombs instead, it would have been possible to destroy all the SCUDs. With the missiles, their precise destructive area only allowed one SCUD missile destroyed per missile fired, at best. The SCUDs were in rows, but they were spaced far enough apart so one missile could only destroy one SCUD, and more than likely, do no damage to any other SCUD.
Yes, the "other side" knows things like that too.

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

The film shows a difference in the US and UK Military operational procedures. The Americans were pushing to strike based on their points system and the Brits were wrestling internally with the decision.

It depicts a clear emotionless operational structure and ROE for the US and a somewhat different approach by the Brits who may have not reached the level of detachment of the US due to less missions and situations encountered by the Brits.

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

[–] Ghosthunter123424 8 years ago

The drone pilots didn't disobey anything, they were hesitant and used the rules to their full extent.

You could easily argue that the American was portrayed in a positive light while the squeamish Brits were fumbling around looking for an excuse to abort.

[–] lostn 8 years ago

What's most implausible to me is how long the suicide bombers conveniently decided to wait inside the house while the chain of command is busy squabbling amongst themselves, passing the buck from one to another. None of them had the spine to make a decision.

I have doubts that a person assign the task of operating the drone's weapons would have hesitations when given an order. If they aren't emotionally cut out to do their job unquestioningly, I don't think they would have made the cut. They'd have been tested rigorously in all aspects of the job just to get to where they were.

If it's been cleared by everyone above you, including your commanding officer, her commanding officer, his, all the way up to the White House, you drop the missile. End of story.

I agree that the movie was ham fisted and extremely lacking in subtlety, but it was still entertaining. I almost expected that after he was finally ready to pull the trigger, he would hesitate once again when a little boy rushes up to the little girl to buy her bread. That would have been taking the p*ss.

[–] Ghosthunter123424 8 years ago

They weren't just sitting around waiting, they were praying then recording their martyrdom videos.

The drone pilot had never fired anything before, they were just piloting in observation runs, so it makes a bit more sense. Also, drone pilots are more prone to ptsd than other operatives.

They often spend time watching people in an area going about their lives, including the targets and the families/friends or civilians near them before blowing them away, then watching the carnage afterwards.

Soldiers and normal pilots rarely get so close to their target, with a possible exception for snipers.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

I very recently watched the movie, and I have added on other threads that the military has problems keeping drone crews. I also believe it is due to being not just able to see what happens, but also being required to do the 'damage assessment'.

In this movie, the decapitated head of one of the targets was shown, and it was also pretty messed up. And so was the girl.

I have to disagree with the way you stated that soldiers rarely get so close to their target. Who do you think does the "body count"? They would see the result of combat up close as well. Snipers might recover from the recoil of their shot in time to see the impact of their shot on the target, similar to the drone crews.

The difference is a single shot has little chance of collateral damage, but a missile strike can do a great deal of collateral damage. There is a difference in control of that damage between the two, and this movie put that right up into the viewers faces.

[–] Ghosthunter123424 7 years ago

Soldiers are supposed to engage from mid range with lots of suppression and fire & manoeuvre.*

Snipers get in positions, observe the target (at extreme ranges it's just a black spec in the lenses ofc, but with high powered scopes at mid-long range...).

Drone crews observe the target, possible tailing them in shifts on and off over a period of weeks, watch them play with their kids, hang out with their buddys, drive the wife to the shopping centre then drop a bomb on the family SUV.

So it's not that soldiers don't get so close, its more about viewing the target as a human, soldiers rarely get that kind of connection, the army try to drill that out of them. Yes they see the result after a skirmish, as horrible as that might be, it isn't the same as seeing a person going about their business; not actively trying to kill you.

*Iraq highlighted the need for close quarter training with soldiers fighting in built up urban areas. So they could get physically close, but it's not really what I'm talking about.

chalk this up to my using the wrong kind of terminology. humanising/de-humanising is more appropriate.

[–] michaeldecker 8 years ago

I'm no military expert, but

And there's the whole problem with your argument. So let me educate you:

The pilot is the one who pulls the trigger and kills people, not anyone else - "I was only following orders" is not a defence these days. So he correctly requested a RoE check early on when the mission changed, and correctly requested a CDA when the girl's presence changed the conditions upon which the original fire command was justified.

You're welcome.

[–] greg1377 8 years ago

FYI kjeao

There are 68 Female Generals in the US Military at this time. Several 4 star,including the highest ranking woman in US Military history, "On May 13, Air Force Gen. Lori Robinson took over as leader of U.S. Northern Command, becoming the first female service member to lead a unified combatant command and thus the highest ranking woman in U.S. military history." (4 star General).

Any combat soldier that feels the orders he/she has received, will violate the UCMJ or the ROE may and has the responsibility to respectfully refuse the order. The final "finger on the button" has the full command authority to abort or prosecute said order. PERIOD

Command may at their discretion replace the "finger" with someone else, but they are not able to court martial or prosecute in any way the soldier who refused as long as there is evidence (witness etc) of his/her objection. PERIOD.

I know this as fact as it was part of our training.

Capt. Greg M S. USAF, SAC, 8th Air force, 7th Bomb Wing (Heavy), 9th Bomb Squadron, B-52D Bombardier/Navigator, Nuclear Weapon qualified. (RET)

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

Years ago, the results of drills (i.e. practices) run on the missile officers in charge of launching ICBM strikes indicated about one-third of the missiles would not be launched. The ICBMs required two launch keys to be turned at very nearly the same instant. If either missile office did not turn their key, by error, or decision, the ICBM(s) would not be launched.
(Yes, there was some sort of "practice/drill mode" so the missiles would not really be launched, but do you think the missile officers knew the difference? It would not be a very effective drill if they did. Do you think some of the drills did expect the missile officers to refuse to launch? Just saying...
And that means that 1/3 number was not necessarily a bad thing at all.)

This movie pretty graphically showed a single "innocent". Launching an ICBM could kill around 10 million people.

It has been more than a few years ago the Soviets/Russians and the Americans agreed not to have their ICBMs target the other's cities, "by default". In the 'old days' of the Cold War, the ICBMs were using liquid fuel, and required some time to fuel an ICBM before they could be launched. The more modern ICBMs use solid fuel, and can be launched much more quickly, so the loading of target information would give more time to stop a 'mistaken' or rogue launch, and that was the stated purpose of de-targeting the missiles.

So yes, the "finger on the trigger" may sometimes rightfully refuse to use the trigger. The Colonel was very close to the edge of proper vs. rogue orders to engage. ('Gimmicking' the CDE to be 45%)

[–] bobtis 8 years ago

I really liked this film. I kept me very engages and I liked all the actors very much and I would recommend it to my friends. Now I agree 100% with crooked bill. If you do not follow orders they would at least have pulled Aaron Paul out and replaced him with with someone who would comply. None of this weepy garbage, but hey it's a movie and I feel they put everyone's beliefs out there so you pick the one you agree with. Gave it a 7+. Artistic license I guess.