User Reviews

Interesting to note how out of touch the average American is with its own military, as is expressed by the litany of repetitious back-slapping preceding comments like "awesome" and "wonderful" and "outstanding". IMO, these comments reek of incredulity and are not only naive, but are indicative of a thrill-seeking audience seeking a vicarious experience from reality-based versions of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Blackhawk Down", albeit with little or no comprehension of what is actually going on, let alone viewing our military in action with a critical eye.

That said, as a former 11B20 and civil affairs soldier, there were a few scenes that made me cringe:

1) In a country where the per capita income is less than $500 per year, and where a man's cow is a man's livelihood and transportation -- an Afghani farmer would regards his cow the same way we regard our own pick-up truck or car here -- this particular unit (2nd Platoon, B Co. 2-503rd AIR, 173rd BCT) couldn't come up with a measly $400 to compensate the farmer for the cow they had eaten, choosing instead to use the flimsy pretext that since the cow got caught in their perimeter wire, it had to be "put down". I guarantee you, this will come back to haunt us on another day, at another time, on another battlefield albeit with the same people, as it will probably be one of the reasons why this particular village and their descendants will continue to nurse a grudge against us for next 1,000 years or more. We should've nipped it in the bud when we had the chance and paid the pittance sum for something we basically stole. Bottom line: Poor leadership and lack of cultural sensitivity and empathy will be our undoing there.

2) In the regular meeting with the tribal elders -- the weekly "shuras" -- the villagers brought up the fact that innocent civilians and family members had been killed by ISAF/Coalition forces. The unit's C.O., Captain Kearney, instead of offering his condolences and apologies like a normal human being would -- in addition to doing his job like he should've done by duly compensating that family in accordance with what ISAF forces are authorized to do -- instead chose to dismissively ignore their complaint and flippantly told them to "forget about it" and that they "need to move on," as if he were telling an ex-girlfriend to f&%$ off.

Not only did he write them off completely without expressing any sympathy or attempt to show any empathy whatsoever, Captain Kearney put another nail in the coffin of the U.S./Afghani partnership in that embattled country, as it is highly likely that such insensitivity and lack of remorse by an American officer toward an Afghani villager won't be forgotten anytime soon by that family or village for at least another 1,000 years.

Again, this was just another example of another incident where we could've and should've nipped it in the bud by using common sense, human decency and blood money to win back the population. Also, this particular unit erred by big time by not having a full-time C.A. (civil affairs) officer attached to this unit to interface between the C.O. and the indigenous population. (Infantry officers, like Capt. Kearney, make poor negotiators.) Bottom line: Poor leadership and a lack of cultural sensitivity and empathy will be our undoing there.

Then, to top things off, in the behind-the-scenes footage, Captain Kearney returns to Ft. Benning and where he not only gets a promotion to Major, but is basically rewarded with a highly coveted posting with the elite Rangers. As he awaits orders, we are shown a glimpse of Kearney's family life, as he continues to play with his little boy and catch up with his wife as if nothing has happened.

So for certain, Major Kearney, with a family of his own, could imagine how the Afghanis in the Korangal felt about losing a family member -- but in fact, and incomprehensibly so, he didn't or couldn't, as he failed to show even a modicum of remorse, or even a de minimus amount of sympathy or empathy to their plight. Having said that, how are we supposed to win this war if our country is being represented by arseholes and hypocrites like that? In actuality, the futility and hopelessness of the campaign that this documentary captured should've inspired a different if not more befitting title like, "God Help Us."

don't get me wrong...the American soldiers did their soldiering well...the reality of what happens in the field was fantastic...interestingly, the movie dispels any illusions of high tech capability/applicability in the conditions of the valley...they sure did a lot of shooting without hitting anything...OK, it was covering fire

more interestingly, there was a total disconnect between the military and the villagers...a lack of respect, sensitivity and cultural understanding...you just don't speak like the soldiers did to the elders - zero respect with a we-tell-you attitude...and the soldiers didn't get point about the cow - we'll give you its weight in rice - you've got to be kidding? ... and they "knew" it was the elders' sons who were shooting at them...so like, shooting back will win hearts and minds?

oh yes, the 'end' goal was to put a road in...i really wonder whether anyone local wanted it

but give the US soldiers their due...they stuck it out and did what they were ordered.

The film as itself is very good. It contains scenes of actual fighting, which are not so often seen in documentaries. On the other hand, as a viewer one must start thinking about the conflict the film depicts. When you look at "the Dead cow scene", this is where the flow of my mind goes the other way. At first, I had sympathy for the soldiers in this film. Afterwards, when you see how they laugh at the man whose cow they have killed, and offer him "beans, rice and flour in the weight of the dead cow" as a compensation... Then you start thinking on what are those people looking for in Afghanistan, why are they not at home in the US? A very strong sentiment of rage goes through your body after wards.

I grew up on idealism. I watched Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Norris and never questioned the nobility and sacrifice that must be endured to maintain our ideals in a black and white world. I believed it and took it to heart. I went down the path of wanting a career in the military.

Leftists are quick to trounce Hollywood's war narrative as being self indulgent, and understandably so. Hollywood rarely supports movies which articulately examine the other side, it's not exactly good for business. We all know about our atrocities but we don't need to be reminded about them in our movies, idealising ourselves as being heroic is much better for selling seats at the movies. If we're not Rambo or Braddock, the gallant hero upholding liberty and justice, we're the sacrificial warrior who's returned from war damaged. Examples include Deer Hunter, Rambo, Platoon and the Hurt Locker.

The Hurt Locker apparently didn't tackle the politics, it presented the sacrifice our young men make on our behalf. Like the Deer Hunter, it's a "real" story about our tragedy in war. If I'm honest, this is partly why I think this movie resonated the way it did. It does little for leftists to criticise something like the Hurt Locker because it's apolitical – it's about the troops and we all know unpopular it is if you don't support the troops.

For the record the Hurt Locker was obviously unashamedly pro-American and I don't think it is apolitical either.

I expect Restrepo will come to be regarded in much the same way, moreover it has the added authenticity of reality. Like the Hurt Locker, it is not about the politics of war, it's about the soldiers. It's about their sacrifice and boy do they make it, in spades. Some die but most give something of themselves that is lost forever and in return they have an experience forced upon them which is so immediate it will never be far from their thoughts.

Very, very powerful stuff.

This is a raw film in every sense and this extends to the filming. I don't do well with jerky filming with quick zoom in and outs. I know most people don't have as much of a problem but it really makes me want to throw up. I do think the filmmakers over indulged to add authenticity but I'm not going to overly criticise it.

This is a film about the American experience, it is not about the wider war and has even less to do with the enemy.

*** Spoilers Ahead ***

Restepro is interesting because while no one could deny the courage of these young men it also asks many passive questions not just about our approach to Afghanistan but maybe our ideals in general... A Captain entering a new war zone not wanting to know about it, a soldier and his "f**king hippie mother" who wouldn't let him have so much as a water pistol and the other solider who doesn't know how he'll top the high of a fire fight. The photo of the kid back home dressed in army fatigues, presumably the son who wants to emulate his heroic father.

Even though the soldiers engage with Afghan locals it is with an overwhelming crippling suspicion on both parts. When the Afghan elders enquire about someone, the Captain tells the locals that he doesn't give a f**k about so and so for grimacing reasons which we as the audience should identify with. When the locals' cow is killed by the soldiers, the offer of rice and beans to repay the debt is met with vacant stares of incredulity. The soldiers tell them in no uncertain terms that if you came looking for money it's not going to happen. There's no mistaking that in the Korangal Valley, it's the Americans who call the shots.

And sometimes those shots don't always hit who they're supposed to. Sometimes those shots stray into places where they shouldn't, killing and maiming the innocents. The Colonel is brought in to explain that the burned babies are unfortunate but essentially they are collateral damage. That's the price paid when the Taliban intermingle with the locals. If the Taliban would just come out to fight the Colonel's soldiers then this wouldn't happen. Such is the unfairness of an asymmetric war.

For some of the soldiers who fought there, the Korangal Valley became the last place they'd see. For others, behind the awkward smiles and the incomprehension, it will be a lifetime of nightmares and memories which will haunt them forever.

Watching these kids is humbling and staggering and I am genuinely in awe of how they can stare death in the face on a daily basis. They deserve more, way more than the $1,000 bonus they might get if they were to stay an extra month. I couldn't do it, more to the point I wouldn't want to do it, not if this is how the war is fought. Al Qaeda have spawned an ideological war which cannot be defeated alone by "getting some".

Perhaps the most sobering part is displayed as the credits roll; in April 2010 the Korangal Valley was abandoned altogether, and I can't help feeling if that is how the war in Afghanistan will end.

I just read a complaint ripping this movie apart saying: "The problem I had with this "movie," is that it was not much of a movie at all. It seemed like two guys decided they were going to embed and then make a movie about their experiences, whether there were any experiences to really show. We see a lot of forced shots where the soldiers really have nothing to say" I could not disagree more, as somebody who has spent a significant amount of time being deployed I was happy to see something that came off as real to me. Something that film makers always miss in movies about war is the boredom. War is hell and war is f***in boring! You have to find ways to entertain to yourself when you are there and that is what they did.

Aside from saying that soldiers have nothing to say sometimes the facial expressions say it all, soldiers don't always need words to express what they are thinking. The anger that those soldiers had after Restrepo died rang very true for me too especially when they talked about wanting to go out and get payback for what happened. It was cold and real.

"Is there any man here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" – Woodrow Wilson

Like most "fly on the wall" war documentaries, "Restrepo" is an exercise in macho sentimentality. The tale of a U.S. Army platoon based in Afghanistan, it unfolds like a typical war movie, alternating between moments of downtime, and moments of tense, adrenaline pumping violence. Simple military values and emotions are then espoused – sacrifice, heroism, male bonding, the frustrations and drudgery of killing an unseen enemy – the end result being a narrative arc designed to make you feel sad for what our boys, and their zillions of dollars worth of hardware, must endure in the name of spreading "freedom". It's Kipling's "White Man's Burden" posing as objectivity.

The soldiers themselves are the usual assortment of jar-heads; most view war as a rights of passage, a chance to prove their manhood, define themselves, go on an adventure and do "something important". These are trivial reasons to enlist, but the military has always been a cultic institution, preying on the anxieties and insecurities of the young.

"Armadillo" pretends to be apolitical, but the very act of avoiding all context is itself a firm ideological stance. What the film ignores is the fact that the Taliban have been deliberately dehumanised by the West for a number of decades. They are painted as irrational fanatics, intolerant fundamentalists, bearded extremists, and terrorists. This, of course, paves the way for aggression, war, and genocide, all of which are waged under the guise of collective self-defence. Killing the Taliban is then celebrated as a legal virtue. To leave the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, says the US and NATO, is to leave a haven for terrorism.

Yet before 9/11, these same "terrorists" were Washington's close allies. They were funded, supported and hailed as "freedom fighters" who with "our help" would be able to fend off the Soviet Union, whom the American public were told sought to destroy Afghanistan. Under the pretext that the Afghan government was a Soviet puppet, which was false, the then Carter Administration authorised the covert funding of opposition tribal groups. These groups were armed and trained in secret camps set up in Pakistan by the CIA.

Thus was born "mujaheddin", a campaign of terror which resulted in the Afghan government in Kabul requesting the help of the Soviet Union, resulting in an ill-fated military intervention which ended ten years later with the retreat of Soviet forces and the descent of Afghanistan into an abyss of religious intolerance, poverty, warlordism and violence. So contrary to "official history", the mujaheddin did not arise in response to a hostile Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union intervened at the request of the Afghan government in response to the instability being wrought by a US funded and armed insurgency. See Nicaragua, Syria, Iraq and Libya.

After 9/11, the White House then turned against the very "allies" they supported, a pattern which we find occurring throughout history. Think Washington's funding of Saddam Hussein against Iran, prior to sweeping in and wiping him out decades later. In the case of the Taliban, the justification for their newfound status as "our enemies" became their supposed links to the WTC attacks and their sudden "oppression of women". In reality the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and were the White House concerned about women's rights they wouldn't be close allies with countless other counties, most notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which practise an "Islamic Law" akin to the Taliban.

The real reason for the West's change of stance toward Afghanistan? During the mid 90s several mega oil corporations began to seduce the Taliban, all seeking approval to build pipelines across the country. Eventually the deal came down to a handful of corporations, the Unocal-CentGas consortium (which later "became" Chevron, and which has ties to the Bush family and Dick Cheney) and Bridas (an Argentine company). While negotiations were underway, Bridas found a partner in gas giant Amoco and Amoco itself went on to merge with British Petroleum. Throw in the fact that Gazprom, a Russian gas company, pulled out of the Unocal-CentGas consortium and that Unocol's proposed pipeline was closed to Afghanistan, whilst that proposed by Bridas would also service the local market, and it looked likely that the Taliban would strike business deals with Bridas. In response, Unocal and its lackeys stepped up their game. Their Vice President of International Relations appeared before the US Congress in February 1998, basically calling for the removal of the Taliban regime. The Taliban themselves were issued an ultimatum: take our offer or we drop the bombs. Meanwhile, cue the Clinton administration's sudden concern about "human right violations" in Afghanistan, the seizing of all US-held Taliban assets, the placement of trade bans, and the calling for the "surrender of Bin Laden". In other words, it was only when absolute control of oil was challenged that the Taliban regime was openly discredited.

Although the Taliban continued to offer negotiations on the handover of Osama bin Laden, the atrocities of 9/11 gave Washington oil policies a convenient new all-inclusive justification. Oil motivations, never a popular foreign-policy justification, could now be submerged within a primal response to a deep-seated national combination of fear, loathing and outrage.

Incidentally, drug trafficking constitutes the third largest global commodity after oil and the arms trade. Afghanistan produces 92 percent of the world's opium, the profits of which are laundered back to the West or channelled toward corrupt chieftains and locals. The longer the war can be prolonged, the more these 3 industries profit. Unsurprisingly, most of the major White House players during this era were affiliated with oil companies active in Central Asia (Condolezza Rice, Bush, Zalmay Khalilzad, Hamid Karzai, Cheney, Donald Evans, Gale Norton, Spencer Abraham, Thomas White etc).

6/10 – Superficial.