Scott O Grady Day

[sputnik]

And that is why so many dislike him. He really bought into acting the war hero. The high point for me was when he stole the title of his memoir from Bud Day's.

You'll note the two dudes shot down during Allied Force kept much lower profiles.

[Breckey]

Then again they didn't evade for 11 days.

[sputnik]

Bud Day did ok

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/ American Sniper

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091191/?ref_=nv_sr_1Lone Survivor

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462504/?ref_=nv_sr_1Rescue Dawn

I'm sorry...you were saying something about not using war experiences for profit?

Your point is valid of course. Though Id say with each of the examples you cited, those dudes did something worth writing about. And worth reading.

I personally wouldnt rank OGradys achievements quite up their with those others.

But, we all gotta pay the mortgage. I can think he acted like a db, he can laugh all the way to the bank.

[Naviguesser]

Bud Day did ok

Your point is valid of course. Though Id say with each of the examples you cited, those dudes did something worth writing about. And worth reading.

I personally wouldnt rank OGradys achievements quite up their with those others.

But, we all gotta pay the mortgage. I can think he acted like a db, he can laugh all the way to the bank.

I should point out that a lot of the proceeds from Lone Survivor and American Sniper go to charities, so they we'rent necessarily written for profit.

[slackline]

I should point out that a lot of the proceeds from Lone Survivor and American Sniper go to charities, so they we'rent necessarily written for profit.

Care to quantify "a lot"? I don't think it's all that much, but that could be because I don't respect them as people. Great SEALS while they were active duty, but self glorifying after the fact... Their books are full of "I'm so awesome!" it's disgusting.

[Mark1]

Care to quantify "a lot"? I don't think it's all that much, but that could be because I don't respect them as people. Great SEALS while they were active duty, but self glorifying after the fact... Their books are full of "I'm so awesome!" it's disgusting.

Not to mention bending the truth, strategically omitting unsavory details, and attempting to push an agenda after the fact that didn't exist in real time....at least in the case of Luttrell. I can't speak for Kyle as I've never read his book.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mark1

[KState_Poke22]

Not to mention bending the truth, strategically omitting unsavory details, and attempting to push an agenda after the fact that didn't exist in real time....at least in the case of Luttrell. I can't speak for Kyle as I've never read his book.

Do expand on these Luttrell claims. Not saying you're wrong, I just don't follow what you mean with these examples.

[HeloDude]

Not to mention bending the truth, strategically omitting unsavory details, and attempting to push an agenda after the fact that didn't exist in real time....at least in the case of Luttrell. I can't speak for Kyle as I've never read his book.

I'd also like to hear the details. And if it's true, then perhaps he was only trying to follow in the footsteps of these two...

[Slander]

Almost universally, the first 1/3 of any book by a Navy SEAL is talking about BUD/S and how hard it is and how hard the author gets when he thinks about it (metaphorically speaking of course, definitely not STS that's inappropriate).

I thought the stories in the "Yellow Green Beret" series were way funnier and more interesting than a lot of SEAL books.

$2.99 for your kindlemachine, 4.80 hours of entertainment each (or so):

http://http://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Green-Beret-Asian-American-Stumbling-ebook/dp/B00695XWZA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1432705644&sr=1-1&keywords=yellow+green+beret

[Mark1]

Do expand on these Luttrell claims. Not saying you're wrong, I just don't follow what you mean with these examples.

Can't discuss the examples because they aren't open source, but here's a post of mine from several years ago in the "Latest Movies" thread (before the movie came out):

The book was written by Luttrell with a ghostwriter. I don't know the reality of the relationship during the writing (how much liberty the ghostwriter took, or if it was straight dictation with literary inputs, etc.), but ultimately Luttrell's got to be held responsible for the content of the book, given that it's published under his name.

During the chapters that deal with the compromise Luttrell chooses to make a political point that is absurd and I can only hope is fiction. He says that he was such good friends with Murphy, and they knew each other so well, that immediately upon the compromise they had a non-verbal moment that made it clear to Luttrell that both he and Murphy understood there was only one proper solution to the problem. They had to execute the goat herders that stumbled upon them, but couldn't, because the liberal politicians back home would crucify them for making the 'tactically sound' decision.

He downplays, or fails to mention the fact, that one of the goat herders they wanted to kill silently with a knife for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was a child.

I find it hard to believe that on top of a mountain in remote Afghanistan, on a mission that wouldn't make the press if the military didn't want it to, facing a potentially life or death decision, both Luttrell and Murphy couldn't think of anything other than what the liberal politicians in Washington would think of them if they didn't let the goat herders go. He insinuates strongly, without explicitly saying so, that Spietz, Murphy, and Axelson's blood is on the liberal politician's hands. If that account is really true, then I feel sorry for both of them having lived their lives so ruled by political division that they couldn't make a life or death decision without it's taint.

But much more likely, Luttrell chose to use one of the most significant moments of the story to make a point outside of the reality of the situation, and in doing so, put something terrible onto a dead man (Murphy) who can't speak for himself. That they both REALLY wanted to execute innocent civilians, including a child, to spare themselves but couldn't because their hands were tied. Not really the picture you'd like to have for a MOH winner...and a HUGE foul on Luttrell's part if he made it up to bolster the story or make a point. Of course at the same time he calls into question his own character, as he was the other among the group that wanted to slit a childs throat to be on the safe side. The point about overbearing ROE getting guys killed is a valid one. Have that conversation with every media outlet in the country separate from the book, or write a different book on that topic, or put it in Lone Survivor as your own opinion aside from the story, but don't do it on the back of a dead guy.

I thought it was odd after reading the book that nobody else seemed to take issue with it, instead focusing on how heroic everybody was, but since then Murphy's dad has come out to say that he didn't appreciate that portion of the book either, saying his son would never think that way.

There are plenty of other exagerrations and stretches of the truth in the book, most notably the number of enemy they faced. I've seen the debriefing materials and AAR, and there are several other stretches of the truth in the book as well, but of less significance.

It's a shame because the story speaks for itself. It was amazing in reality. It didn't need churching up, or the addition of Luttrell's agenda, and only serves to dishonor the guys who died that day.

I can't recall if the AAR is classified SPECAT. If so, you may not have access to it, but if not, you can probably locate it and see for yourself.

I have not seen the movie, but I did see a trailer depicting the moment of compromise. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they chose to accurately portray one of the goat herders as a young boy. Luttrell glances over it in the book. However, in the movie it's not a big deal because they put all the desire to kill the goat herders on Axelson (another massive foul) while Luttrell steadfastly and aggressively argues that they can't execute the civilians. This is in contrast to the several pages in the book that Luttrell dedicates to his true desire for killing the goat herders (he reluctantly relents due to outside forces/pressure).

Of course there's a reason why the movie producers would have wanted to eliminate anything that didn't glorify their hero, but given that Luttrell was a consultant, he shouldn't have allowed it. It does another disservice to the dead men.