Navy SEAL honored with warship bearing his name
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
witness23
Veteran Expediter
If anyone deserves the honor of naming a warship after them, it is this guy. There are stories like these taking place everday that we have know idea about. Pray for our troops here and abroad, that give up their freedoms and their lives for us back home.
Pray for our Government and our leaders for wisdom and courage, that they may provide leadership, and pray for God to show his will to them so that they can make decisions that is pleasing to Him, so that we shall be protected as a nation.
Pray for our Government and our leaders for wisdom and courage, that they may provide leadership, and pray for God to show his will to them so that they can make decisions that is pleasing to Him, so that we shall be protected as a nation.
Amen, brother, Amen!
So, the leader of this SEAL team makes a really bad decision resulting in total failure of the mission, and gets himself and his entire team, save one, killed. Not only that, the phone call he made while being killed resulted in 16 other special forces personnel being killed, the largest single-day loss in special forces history and the largest single-day loss of American life in Afghanistan since the invasion began.
For this he is awarded the Medal of Honor, and a guided-missile destroyer, post office and a park named after him.
Certainly no disrespect toward Lt Murphy, especially since he had an impressive track record in a short military career, and I don't doubt his bravery or ability, but I find it very difficult to understand how someone is awarded the Medal of Honor in light of the fact that his poor judgment and bad decision as the team leader put him and his men at risk. Were his actions acts of selfless bravery, or merely an 'OMG I screwed up get me outta here!' last ditch decision? Someone needs to ask these question publicly.
His questionable actions a the Team Leader resulted in a lot of needless American deaths, 19 bona fide heroes, despite the fact that 93 Taliban soldiers were also killed (who wouldn't have even been there were it not for the first bad decision). I don't see how his actions come close to rising to the occasion of the Medal of Honor. If I were the suspicious type I might be convinced that the Navy, Congress and the White House were looking for good press in a time when people were becoming more and more critical of the war over there, and used this situation for political gain. It's certainly not the first time such a thing has been done, nor the last.
The press certainly didn't have much to say about the award ceremony in 2007. With most Medal of Honor ceremonies, the major newspapers cover it on the front page, and the broadcast media makes it one of the top stories. Not with this one. This one was very different. Hardly any coverage at all. I wonder why? The most recent Recipient got the front page he deserved. It's easy (and inaccurate) to say that the most recent recipient got all the press because the press is left wing and the President is, well, you know, and that Murphy didn't get any press because the President at the time was Bush and the press didn't like him, so they didn't cover it. But the press historically covers the Medal of Honor award for what it is without regard to which party is in power. So I have to wonder if the press didn't see it for what it was. The only real press is got was on Fox News on cable, they covered it like it was supposed to be covered - without any political overtones, which is rare for them, to be sure.
The lone survivor, Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell recounts in his book, Lone Survivor, that the SEALs voted on whether to let the goatherds live or to kill them. It wasn't a straight-up vote, but more of a discussion than a vote, but the tally was 2-1, with one abstention, in favor of letting them go. Petty Officer Second Class Matthew G. Axelson was in favor of killing the herders, while Petty Officer Second Class Danny P. Dietz was noncommittal. Lt. Michael Murphy wanted to release them, and Luttrell agreed with his superior officer, breaking the deadlock.
About that decision, Luttrell writes: "It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life. I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I'd turned into a f--ing liberal, a half-аssed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jackrabbit."
Of course, a lot of that sentiment, I'm sure, comes from the understandable guilt of being the lone survivor, but it is telling nonetheless. The decision was ultimately made by Murphy, but all four members of the team were absolutely behind it according to Luttrell, despite the above quote (and despite the unwarranted slur on the South). But does all this actually warrant a Congressional Medal of Honor? I'm not so sure. I think this was a convenient dead hero at a time when we (or rather the government) needed one.
I'm sure my comments here will make a lot of people mad. Sorry about that.
For this he is awarded the Medal of Honor, and a guided-missile destroyer, post office and a park named after him.
Certainly no disrespect toward Lt Murphy, especially since he had an impressive track record in a short military career, and I don't doubt his bravery or ability, but I find it very difficult to understand how someone is awarded the Medal of Honor in light of the fact that his poor judgment and bad decision as the team leader put him and his men at risk. Were his actions acts of selfless bravery, or merely an 'OMG I screwed up get me outta here!' last ditch decision? Someone needs to ask these question publicly.
His questionable actions a the Team Leader resulted in a lot of needless American deaths, 19 bona fide heroes, despite the fact that 93 Taliban soldiers were also killed (who wouldn't have even been there were it not for the first bad decision). I don't see how his actions come close to rising to the occasion of the Medal of Honor. If I were the suspicious type I might be convinced that the Navy, Congress and the White House were looking for good press in a time when people were becoming more and more critical of the war over there, and used this situation for political gain. It's certainly not the first time such a thing has been done, nor the last.
The press certainly didn't have much to say about the award ceremony in 2007. With most Medal of Honor ceremonies, the major newspapers cover it on the front page, and the broadcast media makes it one of the top stories. Not with this one. This one was very different. Hardly any coverage at all. I wonder why? The most recent Recipient got the front page he deserved. It's easy (and inaccurate) to say that the most recent recipient got all the press because the press is left wing and the President is, well, you know, and that Murphy didn't get any press because the President at the time was Bush and the press didn't like him, so they didn't cover it. But the press historically covers the Medal of Honor award for what it is without regard to which party is in power. So I have to wonder if the press didn't see it for what it was. The only real press is got was on Fox News on cable, they covered it like it was supposed to be covered - without any political overtones, which is rare for them, to be sure.
The lone survivor, Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell recounts in his book, Lone Survivor, that the SEALs voted on whether to let the goatherds live or to kill them. It wasn't a straight-up vote, but more of a discussion than a vote, but the tally was 2-1, with one abstention, in favor of letting them go. Petty Officer Second Class Matthew G. Axelson was in favor of killing the herders, while Petty Officer Second Class Danny P. Dietz was noncommittal. Lt. Michael Murphy wanted to release them, and Luttrell agreed with his superior officer, breaking the deadlock.
About that decision, Luttrell writes: "It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life. I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I'd turned into a f--ing liberal, a half-аssed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jackrabbit."
Of course, a lot of that sentiment, I'm sure, comes from the understandable guilt of being the lone survivor, but it is telling nonetheless. The decision was ultimately made by Murphy, but all four members of the team were absolutely behind it according to Luttrell, despite the above quote (and despite the unwarranted slur on the South). But does all this actually warrant a Congressional Medal of Honor? I'm not so sure. I think this was a convenient dead hero at a time when we (or rather the government) needed one.
I'm sure my comments here will make a lot of people mad. Sorry about that.
Your little banner of No Turtle left behind ring a bell.
Complancy Ring a Stinking Bell.
Smith shot in the head June 10th 2004 laid to rest on his B-day the 17th of June. RIP Smitty.
Complancy no room for it.
Nor is my Patience on this subject or with those that don't got a clue.
Complancy Ring a Stinking Bell.
Smith shot in the head June 10th 2004 laid to rest on his B-day the 17th of June. RIP Smitty.
Complancy no room for it.
Nor is my Patience on this subject or with those that don't got a clue.
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Quite simply, no you're not.
I'm not sure if you simply forgot to mention the reason why they were in the situation they were in, or if you intentionally left it out. But you did add this classy statement:
An OMG I screwed up get me outta here! last ditch decision? Really?
If you truly did not know why they were in the situation they were in, and the decisions that they were confronted with, and posted this without that knowledge, then I suggest you do a little more seaching and reading.
OK, I'm not. Happy now?
No, I didn't forget to mention why they were there. I saw no reason to, since it's outlined pretty well all over the Web. They were in that situation because they were given a recon mission that took place on top of that mountain. That's really irrelevant to the decisions that were made after they got there, tho, and totally irrelevant to him being awarded the CMoH.
Yes, really. The decisions he made ended up being a total failure of the mission.
I've done quite a bit of reading on this matter, including Luttrell's book. Have you read Luttrell's book? Regardless, I've outlined above within my statement why I made them. After reading what I wrote, if you can come to the conclusion that I'm ignorant of the subject or why they were there or of the decisions they made, then you might want to read it again.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
You're sticking with that? Hey whatever man. If you read Luttrell's book, then you know exactly what I meant when I mentioned why they were in the situation they were in. For you not to mention that, then I must assume that you are going along lines that those here in the Soapbox will not take the time to look it up for themselves and form an opinion. Its a pretty important part that you are leaving out and you find nothing wrong with it.
I can't read your mind and I have no idea what you are talking about. Luttrell mentions four specific "situations" they had to deal with during that ordeal, and there are probably a dozen more, militarily, ethically and morally, which can be construed. Which one are you talking about? If you think it's no important, then add to the discussion by mentioning it and making it clear so others can understand it.
Or, answer my question from the other thread. I don't care which.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
If you didn't think it was important enough to put in your post, then its not worth it for me to discuss it with you. It say's a lot about you though, for me at least, and quite frankly I am bit surprised.
Last edited:
No offence, but your posts are often difficult for me to understand. I would like to understand them better. Sometimes I think you and someone else are saying the same thing, but can't get it together for linguistic reasons.
Again, considering I have no idea what you are talking about, it's a bit unfair of you to try and level some sort of nondescript and veiled scolding about what I wrote. That says a lot about you, actually. Which situation are you referring to? Like I said, if you think it's important, then it should be mentioned. If you don't think it's important, then why did you bring it up and try to scold me for it?
Having not read anything beyond the article from Yahoo news, it seems to me that in another time and place not too long ago the aftermath from this incident might have been totally different. First of all, it appears that Murphy and his crew totally abandoned their orders and the object of their mission. If something like this had happened with a scouting mission in North Africa during WW2, the survivor would probably have been court martialed. It sounds like Lt Murphy was more concerned with compassion and political correctness than completing his mission. His lack of judgement, failure to follow orders and his compassion for enemy sympathizers resulted in the deaths of himself and his fellow soldiers. In spite of all this he gets a battleship named in his honor for being a military disgrace. Maybe we ought to look at this ordeal from the perspective of the parents or wives of the other soldiers that died because of his stupidity. If this guy is being held up as an example for our military leaders of the future, we're in big trouble. If this opinion makes anyone mad, too bad. A famous President once defined victory in war as follows: "we win, they lose", not "we win, they like us".
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Non taken. With this particular thread I would imagine it would be hard to follow. Reason being is because I think turtle know's exactly what I'm talking about but for some reason doesn't want to bring it to light. Do you really think the military would name a warship after someone that is not fully deserving of it?
The opening line of Turtles post:
What decision was that?
Well, considering the fact that the situation was laid out pretty well in detail in the article provided by the link, unless you are talking about some other situation that I cannot fathom, and since I saw no reason in mentioning again those details outlined in the article, why would you suggest that I forgot to mention the details that people should have just finished reading? I don't understand why the hostility on your part.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim gets it and responded in his typical fashion. Maybe PM him and ask him.
What decision and why was it bad?
I know Turtle should be the one answering this, but I'll take a shot at it too since I like shooting fish in a barrel. Here's a hint - remember the goatherds? To allow them to return to their village was the worst possible course of action. Secondly, that the Lt. brought it up for discussion is unheard of in military procedure. He was the senior officer in the group and he should have made the decision, given the order and the members under his command follow the order. Once soldiers begin to bring combat decisions up for discussion and votes, they have chaos - which is exactly what happened here. I'll say again: if Murphy had survived this fiasco he would have been court martialed.
There were several bad decisions made, obviously, but the first one was taking a SEAL team into the mountains with no rope. The biggest one was deciding to be constrained within the false dichotomy of black/white, kill or be killed, kill the goat herders or let them go, rather than explore and be prepared for any of several other options. It's not like recon teams haven't come across goat herders in those mountains before, and they were totally unprepared for that situation.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Now Turtle you know better than that. There aren't any tress to hang the goat herders from at that elevation.