MovieChat Forums > We Were Soldiers (2002) Discussion > Lt. Moore's Worst Command Decision?

Lt. Moore's Worst Command Decision?

posted 11 years ago by eliotno3
18 replies | jump to latest

While it's 100% key to recover KIA, it made NO SENSE whatsoever for Hal & Gramps to lead the search for those men. You could see from the terrain & camera angle they were walking blind into enemy controlled sniper fire too. One spray of bullets = game over = completely ruined the realism of the script for me.

Or is it especially morale-boosting to see your commanding officer risk an entire mission by dragging dead bodies around? I was wondering if there were any other huge blunders made during the film...

[–] Quintpalm2 11 years ago

Eliot- I doubt you've directed a film, and I doubly doubt you've commanded men in battle, so I do not believe you are qualified to criticize either position.

The decisions that any commander makes during a heated battle are made on the fly and can, of course, be subjected to human foibles.

Men like you and me stand on the shoulders of men like Lt General Moore. We enjoy our freedoms because of what he did in battles like the Ia Drang. Cut him some slack.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Jesus the guy is making a comment about a movie. This is IMDb, we're here to discuss movies and everyone here has every right to make their opinions known whether it offends your high and mighty sensitivities or not. Get over yourself!

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] theyellowsquad 9 years ago

The OP said *beep* and the guy replied with *beep* No one gets a free pass. You get the *beep* over yourself, goof.

[–] WhiskeyFudge 11 years ago

Respect is fine, but Military History would come to a grinding halt if you're not allowed to question decisions taken under stress or in battle. Or if you if you need to have commanded men in battle to do so.

[–] bluesman-20 11 years ago

Moore made a promise. Everyone comes home living, dead or wouunded. He wanted to know where his men were at all times. I can respect his decision. He had that much respect for his men.

Five to one baby,one in five. No one here gets out alive -Jim Morrison

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Questioning is one thing. Judging when you are not in a position or have the experience to do so is something else entirely.

The first is a matter of conversation and learning.

The second is asshat armchair commando quarterbacking.

The OP was the latter.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] gsfsu 10 years ago

We enjoy our freedoms because of what he did in battles like the Ia Drang.

You could make this statement about some battles (Midway or The Battle of the Bulge) for example but not for any battle in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were fighting to rid their country of invaders and did not, and could not have any anticipation of affecting the freedom of any American. We were on their soil. They were not on ours.

[–] Grizzleberries 10 years ago

you know, I feel this is a good moment to have an honest discussion about the whole "we owe our freedoms to veterans" mentality..

Before I am crucified, let me just say I have the utmost respect to veterans and everything, I just feel we owe our freedoms more to the fact that the 13 colonies practiced and came from a society that engaged in self government, dating back even before the Magna Carta; rather to the Germanic "Thing" councils that the Anglo-Saxons took with them to England; the king would meet with locals in villages to get a feel for what was going on, ect.. (you can look this stuff up). added to that, I feel that America is more protected from any Actual threats to our "freedoms"(ask anyone in our overpopulated prisons, about these "freedoms")/way of life is more protected by the two huge oceans that border us from many of our former nation-state enemies.. I guess what I am trying to say, is that to simply say "your freedoms come from the service of vets" is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION of global history.

Couldn't one also say, that

1)one legacy of America's many foriegn military adventures is a culture of "declaring war" on aspects of our society, rather than addressing the underlying socio-economic cause??(War on Drugs..)

2) this American military legacy has also infiltrated our police forces, creating a militarized police force across the country that sticks to an "us vs them" mentality, when interacting with the very citizens they are sworn to protect and serve?

I just feel this needs to be said, and should be discussed without detractors claiming any who feel this way are "disrespecting the vets/unamerican/"antifreedom"(whatever the hell that means)

I am not "against the vets" btw, I just see another side to this coin of america's military legacy, whenever anyone says "you owe your freedoms to these vets"

[–] Quintpalm2 10 years ago

Grizzleberries- You've laid out some good reasoning but it could be said that we owe our ongoing freedom to our vets rather than our past freedom.

[–] sargesmash 9 years ago

Vets are thanked for putting their lives on the line to fight for whatever the cause may be, while civilians can carry on with their everyday lives.

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

Eliot- I doubt you've directed a film, and I doubly doubt you've commanded men in battle, so I do not believe you are qualified to criticize either position.

What kind of insane dogmatic idea is that? This isn't rocket science. Its common sense and film 101.

Men like you and me stand on the shoulders of men like Lt General Moore. We enjoy our freedoms because of what he did in battles like the Ia Drang. Cut him some slack.

I'm quite sure America would be just as free if not more so if we never set foot in Vietnam. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to just how exactly it made us more free? More free to kill foreigners?
Remember, we left and Communism took over. America was still just fine. It was as if we never even went, minus all the dead people and plants.

This is not meant to be insulting to vets, they don't choose when and where to go fight and my Father was in Nam. I just don't follow your "logic".

[–] wartengu 8 years ago

Most of the guys commanding men into battle never been in harms way, yet alone a real battle. Any porch monkey can send men into war while they sit at a safe distance twiddling their thumbs. There's nothing great about these men. They wouldn't last a day on the front lines.

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

Sure the closer to the front the better you lead, especially if you need to get an idea of what things are like 'on the ground' & not hovering overheard in a chopper, but there are 'limits' to how that can apply;

Rommel was a pretty great division & corp commander but a lot of times in the Western Desert he'd go zooming off to the front lines like he was a platoon leader at Capporetto again, leaving his ACTUAL corp in the lurch as to what his intentions are, and leaving him sort of uninformed as to what 'other battlefield conditions' are developing.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Kitchen_Sink 10 years ago

Could anyone who has read the book confirm whether Col. Moore actually did this, or if the scene was just made up for the movie?

[–] badwithsports 10 years ago

It's been about ten years since I read the book, but I believe he did. The major difference is the ending, they didn't charge and wipe out the enemy at the end. The Vietnamese regulars fell back and Moore sent scouts out gradually for like two days before deciding the battle was basically over.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

It's been about ten years since I read the book, but I believe he did.

So on that basis it's probably safe to say that it wasn't his worst command decision.🐭

[–] SquirePM 10 years ago

All you civilians are stumbling around this subject like a blind man in the dark. There is a crystal clear reason why the Commanding Officer and his Sergeant Major led the search for those missing soldiers. It involves a cardinal principle of military leadership:

A commander never asks his men to do something he would not be willing to do himself. And how do you make that point to your men? You do it yourself.

I was a U.S. Army infantry officer and a platoon leader in Vietnam. I never once ordered any of my men to do something I didn't do right along with them. When it was an individual task, such as blowing up a booby trap, I was always the one who rigged the charge (oh, so carefully).

LTC. Moore was a good officer, and a trained leader of men. There WAS no decision to be made. He led the search for the missing soldiers, and his Sgt. Major naturally went with him.