S3E14.5: Rules of Engagement

This movie goes to show that even before 9-11 there was an ongoing effort to manufacture consent for war in the middle east

I love the fact that this movie Poe's Lawed Abby so hard.

There's a really interesting discussion of the concept of rules of engagement in the book 'Sniper One' (first hand acount of the Iraq war). The question being, 'can you shoot the unarmed radio operator who is directing mortar fire onto your position?'. The answer that comes back from command is 'yes you can' because despite being unarmed, they are still an enemy combatant.

Fun fact, this movie's stupid premise near exactly happened in real life a few years later, when Marine special forces murdered a bunch of women and children and got kicked out of Afghanistan in the process for their incompetence

also disappointed nobody said "A Guy I'd love to Pearce"

I feel like running back to fetch the flag is like equivalent to somtimes in movies when someone saves a child from a burning building and the kid is like "Wait! Charlie is still in there!" and the hero runs back and re-emerges and it turns out Charlie was a stuffed animal.

oh, if I can suggest a movie: Cloak and Dagger (1984)! A "kid spy" movie about a boy and a girl trying to keep a video game away from bad guys. The boy has a tux-wearing spy for an imaginary friend! The game contains a hilarious schematic that must be kept secret! No one's recruiting minors for their covert organization but the bad guys certainly don't seem to know that and do not hold back.

I was kinda on the fence about November's changed-during-production idea, but the Chinese Fight Club ending *really* doesn't make sense if that's not what happened.

Is the jury finding him Not Guilty of murder just right-wingers doing jury nullification? Like "yeah, he did it, but we think it's based actually"

Equipping all the protesters with West German caseless H&K G11s to better conduct my false flag attack

Well I'm at 1h2min of the podcast and I've gotta say, "when our troops are credibly accused of war crimes it's actually an all-encompassing conspiracy by foreigners who had it coming" is a much worse message than what Abi thought they were going for.

Joint Chiefs of Staff be like "we're gonna make him the fall guy, on account of him being the single person most responsible for these 83 murders." That's not a fall guy, that's just a culprit

Samuel L Chadson vs Commie Lee Jones

I think it's clear that Rules of Engagement generally seeks to translocate the imagery and myths of the Vietnam War into a "modern," post-Gulf War context (e.g. the helicopter evacuation from the top of the embassy, spitting on vets, Samuel L. Jackson doing the Eddie Adams photo). What I was wondering, however, was the degree to which this film was meant to *specifically* re-litigate the My Lai massacre, which saw US troops murder 504 civilians and rape at least 20 women and girls, some as young as 10. Charlie Company, which inflicted the atrocity, had spent the period prior to the killing complaining about heavy casualties from snipers. Men like William Calley and Ernest Medina had argued that the snipers were camouflaging themselves among the Vietnamese population, using them as "human shields." While the period prior to the massacre was defined by them flouting international law (using prisoners as mine detectors, randomly beating civilians, throwing people down wells), the argument that the company tried to use during the massacre was that *all* the villagers were "VC", all of them were "armed", and that their conduct had been authorized by higher ups in command. The US Government spent the period after the massacre desperately trying to cover up what had happened, but when it *was* revealed and a trial did take place (one that hinged on the "rules of engagement"), many politicians and commentators expressed outrage at the notion that the USG was allowing it at all. Even as there were domestic protests, then-Governor Jimmy Carter infamously informed reporters that "we did not regret their deaths as much”, decried the harsh punishment given to the one man found guilty, and proclaimed a state holiday in the form of "American Fighting Man's Day" to protest the ruling. In the film, "Rules of Engagement", the propagandized version of My Lai triumphs. It turns out that the men were right to be outraged by deaths by sniper fire that they could not respond to. They were right that the "enemy" was using civilians as human shields and then right again when it turns out that there were no civilians at all, that they really all were heavily armed guerillas whose involvement in American deaths has been covered up. They were right that the government was "hanging them out to dry" and that none of the men involved in the massacre were actually responsible. It's all someone else. It's the politicians betraying them, covering up the truth with the assistance of "the enemy". (I'll also note here that the movie drastically scales down the amount of deaths from the massacre, something that Calley's defenders often did as well.) That the opening scene takes place in the same year as the massacre and Vietnam looms large in the background of the film makes me think this is not accidental but a deliberate choice and an absolutely monstrous one at that. It's also worth noting that the pre-9/11 period was overrun with the "we were just being held back in Vietnam!" myth and a lot of posturing about how the Gulf War "proved" America had overcome "Vietnam Syndrome."

I'd love to see the crew's take on BREAKER MORANT, although now I feel like we already have.

this is probably the most intensely racist movie they've had to watch ever since live and let die

Always love seeing KD on the bonus feed. Cheers

Benghazi broke the US rightwing psyche so bad it echoed over a decade back in time

I would be really interested in your opinions on Dragged Across Concrete. That’s a film that uhhh…says some things for sure

I love the idea that every time the movie has someone say something like "war crimes are bad" they're lit like Horus Lupercal.

In addition to Fury, I would love for y'all to do Saving Private Ryan because of how it shows that American war crimes are good if not necessary, and showing even a moment of humanity will lead to a guy who comes back later in the movie to brutally kill a friend in front of you

As someone who has read an increasingly large pile of Vietnam books, I am 100 percent certain that Vietnamese officer would have seen Jackson shoot his radio officer and gone "fuck yourself, you will all die here" if he said anything at all.

Once again fun fact: the Chinese Fight Club ending is the original book ending.

So I have a thought about Cao saluting in the end, which is that yes it's a risibly bullshit rah rah America "even the people we brutalize and warcrime respect us" moment, BUT the flipside of it is that in that moment the film wants us to see Cao as a Fellow Troop, fully human, with honour and feelings and shit who was just doing his job ; as opposed to a cruel, evil-hearted Punji Stake Elemental. That's very rare in US movies about the war I feel, the only time I'd seen it before was in We Were Soldiers (2002).

SLJ was totally CTRL+A;DELETE on those civies. Sounded funny in my head, snickered.

Ever see the stickers on the back of someone's car and they tell you all you need to know about the driver? I was in a drive-thru and saw the car in front had a US Marines sticker and a American flag "Thin Blue Line" sticker and I looked to the other occupants and said "I bet he's a real joy to deal with." After getting the food the car didn't move. After a short pause a man emerges 3/4 of the way out of the window and starts pounding his fist on the drive-thru window and screaming. After not getting a response he throws his drink at the building and hurtles off. Oorah.

As November said in another podcast, I forgot how good of an impressionist KD is

Jesus Christ it's KD!

This movie would make an interesting double feature with 3 different movies for 3 different reasons. Movie the first: In The Valley of Elah, for a TLJ movie about war, specifically a post Iraq invasion war movie. Movie the second: The Sunset Limited, specifically for a TLJ & SLJ movie discussing death, morality, & spirituality. Movie the third: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, specifically for another William Friedkin military trial drama but 23 years later.

If you folks are eager to watch another War Crime trial movie then may I humbly recommend from mine own country of Australia the film 'Breaker Morant'. You can watch it for free on Youtube. It's good as hell.

Make Abby peoples commissar of movies.

KD's Clinton impression sounds astonishingly like my cousin when he's very high

It's always upsetting when you get to the end of a movie you were enjoying only to realise that what you thought was biting criticism of reactionary politics was the just the filmmakers unambiguously stating their fascistic beliefs.

Every marine is apparently worth 26.7 civilians according to this movie.

I saw this movie a few years ago, I think when Friendly Fire did an episode on it, and I remember exactly fuck-all of what happened in it. Did not remember Guy Pearce at all until he was mentioned.

The other pre-post-9/11 movie is The Siege (1998)

My dumb ass went to the Rom Com Sit Com with Patrick Warburton and David Spade.... they're dating other women in the show, not eachother. Sorry to disappoint(?)