# Discussion on book "Victory Point"



## Diesel_Actual (Jun 10, 2010)

Looking for some opinions on this book " Victory Point: Operation Red Wings and Operation Whalers"
I've started reading it, and I am reservations about it, mainly that it serves as a complete rebuttal to Marcus Luttrell's account of the operation, stopping just short of calling him completely full of shit. I have found alot of contradictions in the book.

The author claims that he had access to classified After Action Reports.(Which I find highly unlikely)
Here are some of the issues outlined in the book pertaining to "Operation Red Wings" that the author criticizes Luttrell about.

1. Originally the mission was for a 6-man USMC recon team, but since the op was to take place @ night, the 160th SOAR would provide the birds, since 160th SOAR could only support SOF teams, the job was handed to the SEALs. The Marines strongly recommended that the SEALs take 6 men as well, book also says that the Marines strongly apposed helicopter insertion as they believed it would comprise the mission immediately, but the SEALs disagreed.

2.Author says, contrary to Luttrell's account that, "AHMAD SHAH WAS NOT A HIGH LEVEL TALIBAN OR AL QAEDA LEADER" and not a "high-value or medium-value target" but instead a "high-payoff target"  _Is this really a distinction that is made, payoff vs. value??_

3. An obvious one, Luttrell got the ops name wrong, it was Red Wings(as in Detroit Red Wings) not Red Wing. _Who cares? From the AAR I've read the Op didn't have a name until after it went down. Perhaps Marcus didn't want to give up the Corps "uber-sophisticated" method of naming operations_

4. *Commo* The Marines suggested the SEALs carry a PRC-117 20 Watt radio, but in spite of the suggestion the SEALs carried (5 Watt) PRC-148 handhelds, which proved to be ineffective in the valley.
The SEALs carried a Iridium 9505A satellite phone, which the author makes a big deal that "Lone Survivor" called it a cell phone. 

5. There are many more issues to list, but the one that bothers me the most.
"Victory Point" claims that the SEALs were ambushed by 6-8 ACM fighters, not the 100+ that are claimed in "Lone Survivor", goes on to say that in Luttrell's intial AAR he stated that they were ambushed by 20-30 fighters. The author is using the video taken during the ambush as his proof for the number of fighters. _Why would Marcus put his reputation on the line, and over-estimate the number of fighters in his book? I can understand being off by 20-25, but off by over 100? We are talking about an elite operator highly trained in reliable information gathering_

I find this book strikingly similar to "Not a good day to die" as it is an account of a SEAL operation gone wrong that attempts to discredit them, from the perspective of conventional forces w/o any input from any SEALs involved(also book is approved by USMC but not NSW). Complied from 3rd hand accounts, from units that were particularly upset about their missions being handed off to SEALs. It's just ridiculous to me, how some of these Army/Marine commanders were so quick to write reports stating the NSW units had no business operating in Afghanistan, but they don't like to mention the hundreds of other joint NSW missions in Afghanistan that were preformed flawlessly. Clearly, inter-service rivalry is still a major issue, or was just a few years ago.

If you really want to get fired up, visit this blog. The authors spend a whole week blasting Marcus Luttrell and his team and Lone Survivor. The stuff is just down right disrespectful. Calling Marcus a "unbalanced warfighter" who "Unable to process his survivor's guilt, he creates a fiction about what happened: 20-30 attackers turns into 200. The team's tactical mistakes--losing communication with higher, not choosing to evacuate faster, deciding to let the goat herders go--become the fault of ROE. The death of his fellow SEALs becomes the fault of liberals, politicians and the media."
http://www.onviolence.com/?o=1

See more of the issues here http://www.darack.com/victorypoint/


----------



## Ravage (Jun 10, 2010)

The story is powerfull, the heroism will last the world for decades to come. The book is written quite poor - lets face it, Luttrell made it (in some aspects) into an "American superhero Christian vs. dirty Taliban Muslims". That  makes for a poor story in my opinon.
Still, only those who were involved in that what took place in Afghanistan June 28th 2005, and those that are "in the KNOW" should have any kind of opinon. The rest of us must eighter get into the system, or shut the fuck up.
A discussions "oh, how can they trash a great hero on the internetz" I think is just plane stupid. Its their opinion. You will find tons of forums and blogs where people who know about warfare from books, movies and airsoft games claim how poor judgement was made by what ever military organization out there. This topic is, I belive, unnecessary.
Luttrell is a hero, wheter he wanted it or not. Those that can't take it, probably want in on some of the action.


----------



## QC (Jun 10, 2010)

Anyone remember a patrol called Bravo Two Zero? The same bitching went on after that as well. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.


----------



## Diesel_Actual (Jun 10, 2010)

Queens Cadet said:


> Anyone remember a patrol called Bravo Two Zero? The same bitching went on after that as well. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.


 
IIRC, Compromised by a goatherder as well.


----------



## Ravage (Jun 10, 2010)

A boy, yes.


----------



## Diesel_Actual (Jun 10, 2010)

Ravage said:


> The story is powerfull, the heroism will last the world for decades to come. The book is written quite poor - lets face it, Luttrell made it (in some aspects) into an "American superhero Christian vs. dirty Taliban Muslims". That  makes for a poor story in my opinon.
> Still, only those who were involved in that what took place in Afghanistan June 28th 2005, and those that are "in the KNOW" should have any kind of opinon. The rest of us must eighter get into the system, or shut the fuck up.
> A discussions "oh, how can they trash a great hero on the internetz" I think is just plane stupid. Its their opinion. You will find tons of forums and blogs where people who know about warfare from books, movies and airsoft games claim how poor judgement was made by what ever military organization out there. This topic is, I belive, unnecessary.
> Luttrell is a hero, wheter he wanted it or not. Those that can't take it, probably want in on some of the action.


 
Thanks for the comments Ravage. 
I didn't really intend to focus the discussion to be about others trashing comments, I just threw that in there because the blog posts revolve around the "Victory Point" account of the events.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2010)

I have to laugh at one thing: the Op didn't have a name until after it started? Get the fuck out of town......That is the most batshit ridiculous thing I've read in a long time.

As to the SEALs making "mistakes." I'll bet approximately 0 of us on this board were involved in their planning cell for the mission and I'd bet that the number of authors of that book who were involved in the planning equals 0 as well. There is a reason the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" exists. Hell, part of a good AAR is picking apart the mistakes in a critical yet constructive manner so you can learn from them. This, this....finger pointing that is so goddamned endemic in America anymore is out of control. AARs are going from learning about one's mistakes and how to not repeat them to CYA and the blame game. I'm one of dozens....DOZENS of men and women on this board who have sat in on portions (or in some cases all) of the SOF planning process and you don't put any sized element on a helo without a gazillion people signing off on it. Even something that is time sensitive has a "buck stops here" moment before the bird launches. 

I haven't seen the video in question but I've watched my share of Pred Pr0n. Hilarious.....go up to the top of the Empire State Building with an empty paper towel roll and look through it. Now, tell me how many cars are on the street. I've seen the Takur Ghar video with Razor 01 and while some detail is discernable other details are not; I'll guess that the video of the recce team is of similar quality. This author has now clued in on something that a JOC full of people didn't know at the time...the same people watching the same damn video? Please....I remember when I heard about the SEALs and shootdown of Turbine 33 and not one single soul in country thought it was 6-8 ACM and BTW Shah was on our "To Do" list for some time.  

This dude is clown shoes.


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 10, 2010)

For starters I have not read this book..honestly not being military many of these types of books are hard for me to understand and basically not just my cup of tea.  But one observation from a silly civilian...when these writers all jump on the genre bandwagon just because of a particular passing public popularity of a particular topic and all suddenly become experts I have to ask..Dude..why werent you there since you have all of the answers and could have saved the day?  That is just my:2c: FWIW.


----------



## Diesel_Actual (Jun 10, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> I have to laugh at one thing: the Op didn't have a name until after it started? Get the fuck out of town......That is the most batshit ridiculous thing I've read in a long time.
> 
> As to the SEALs making "mistakes." I'll bet approximately 0 of us on this board were involved in their planning cell for the mission and I'd bet that the number of authors of that book who were involved in the planning equals 0 as well. There is a reason the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" exists. Hell, part of a good AAR is picking apart the mistakes in a critical yet constructive manner so you can learn from them. This, this....finger pointing that is so goddamned endemic in America anymore is out of control. AARs are going from learning about one's mistakes and how to not repeat them to CYA and the blame game. I'm one of dozens....DOZENS of men and women on this board who have sat in on portions (or in some cases all) of the SOF planning process and you don't put any sized element on a helo without a gazillion people signing off on it. Even something that is time sensitive has a "buck stops here" moment before the bird launches.
> 
> ...



Great, this is the kinda of post I was looking for, as for the OP not having a name at first, I found that in a Naval War College document written by a USMC commander, I'll have to dig it back up.
As for the vid of the ambush, it still floats around the internet, a googling of it will produce a find, but it won't be on youtube. It is of considerable quality, but by no means gives any idea of the size of the attacking force.

Also, the author claims that there was not UAV support of this Operation.
Thanks for the great post!

Another point, claims that the SEALs forced the SOAR pilots to leave Bagram before AH-64 support was available.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 19, 2010)

For those doubting the validity of the book "Victory Point" or the author, the book was just named *one of the best books of 2009 by the United States Naval Institute*.

I think the US Naval Institute would have a little more insight into a joint Navy SOF/Marine mission than any of the Naysayers on this site. Not to mention the amount of information provided about the Op & the missions preceding and following the Op Red Wings.


----------



## Headshot (Jul 19, 2010)

Diesel_Actual said:


> Great, this is the kinda of post I was looking for, as for the OP not having a name at first, I found that in a Naval War College document written by a USMC commander, I'll have to dig it back up.


 
If the mission was taken from the hands of the USMC and handed to the SEAL's, then that commander probably wouldn't have known the name of the mission until afterward, even though it had one prior.  Just because you're on the same ship doesn't mean you know everything that is going on.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 19, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> For those doubting the validity of the book "Victory Point" or the author, the book was just named *one of the best books of 2009 by the United States Naval Institute*.
> 
> I think the US Naval Institute would have a little more insight into a joint Navy SOF/Marine mission than any of the Naysayers on this site. Not to mention the amount of information provided about the Op & the missions preceding and following the Op Red Wings.


 
Really Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 what did he do for peace....nothing, yet they still nominated him....it is some desk jockey sitting in a cubicle that liked the read. 

"I am with the goverment and I am here to help"


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 21, 2010)

Polar Bear said:


> Really Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 what did he do for peace....nothing, yet they still nominated him....it is some desk jockey sitting in a cubicle that liked the read.


 
Really, now that's a stretch. It can't be a simple answer like the information on this site is wrong...

Nobody's here to degrade M. Luttrell, I read "Lone Survivor" & liked it.  "Victory Point" contains a lot of in depth & accurate info on Red Wings & the Ops that led up to & followed it. 

It does however point out some inaccuracies & missteps of Op RW & that's ok.  Ops occasionally go bad & this was a very tragic and compelling story that should be told fr/all sides.

The Naval Institute didn't name it a 2009 best b/c it was a good story but b/c it was an accurate & detailed retelling.




I remember when stories 1st surfaced that McChrystal signed off on a lie about P. Tilman. I called it BS but I read all sides, but ppl on Mil-Blogs put their fingers in their ears & had an online riots... WHY??  That was Championship KooL-Aid drinking at its best.


----------



## pardus (Jul 21, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> The Naval Institute didn't name it a 2009 best b/c it was a good story *but b/c it was an accurate & detailed retelling*.



How do you this?

I'd like to read victory point, I really enjoyed Lone Survivor but I raised my eyebrows in disbelief* when I read certain parts of it.



Queens Cadet said:


> Anyone remember a patrol called Bravo Two Zero? The same bitching went on after that as well. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.


 
Exactly! There have been many books written about this patrol, 4 by people either on the patrol (3) or intimately involved in it (1), plus one (ex SAS) who went onto the ground to investigate inconsistencies.




Diesel_Actual said:


> IIRC, Compromised by a goatherder as well.


 


Ravage said:


> A boy, yes.


 
Maybe, depends on whose version you believe, apparently the goatherder boy said he didn't even know they were there. Hence the controversy.


* I don't mean that I think Luttrell lied, more of a "wow, really? :uhh: " type of thing.


----------



## AWP (Jul 22, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> Nobody's here to degrade M. Luttrell, I read "Lone Survivor" & liked it.  "Victory Point" contains a lot of in depth & accurate info on Red Wings & the Ops that led up to & followed it.
> 
> It does however point out some inaccuracies & missteps of Op RW & that's ok.  Ops occasionally go bad & this was a very tragic and compelling story that should be told fr/all sides.
> 
> The Naval Institute didn't name it a 2009 best b/c it was a good story but b/c it was an accurate & detailed retelling.



Okay, I'll bite. How do you know this? How do you how accurate the book is?

I'm not saying the book is all lies or all truth, none of them are, but since you seem to know a lot about this event I'd like to know what "Kool-aid" we need to stay away from.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 22, 2010)

Headshot said:


> If the mission was taken from the hands of the USMC and handed to the SEAL's, then that commander probably wouldn't have known the name of the mission until afterward, even though it had one prior.  Just because you're on the same ship doesn't mean you know everything that is going on.


 
The SEAL's didn't take the mission from the Marines nor did the SEAL's change the name. The Marines fr/that unit (2/3) & the Marines fr/the previous unit (3/3) were naming the missions after sports teams.

How the SEAL's ended up leading the R&S was due to procedure & is exactly why the USMC insists on deploying in MAGTFs. 

_Some Background:_
The Marines of 2/3 *did not deploy as a MAGTF*. 2/3 was filling an obligation to attach a rotation USMC Inf BN to a US Army 82nd AB BCT. In fact they were the only USMC Ground Unit in A'stan at that time.

Not deploying as a MAGTF meant they had to rely on the US Army BCT for all Combat Functions.

RW was preceded by Operations Spurs, Mavericks, & Celtics. All involved USMC/NAVSOF collaboration. But all were USMC led & designed w/the Marines retaining OPCON which is technically against Title 10 protocol. However the relationship btwn the Marines & the CJSOTF-A Cmdr (at the time) was good.



http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,usmc1_040405.00.html


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31529

*How the SEALs got involved w/Red Wings*

Op RW was designed by 2/3 & originally called for a 6-man Marine Scout/Sniper team to conduct the R&S phase.

However, the Army BCT's Pilots weren't authorized to make the type of insertion the Marines required so the request was kicked up to the 160th. Previously that hadn't been a problem but by the time of RW the Marines had changed command as well as the CJSOTF. Had they deployed as a MAGTF, the USMC pilots were certified to make the landing.

The new CJSOTF insisted on protocol, they tasked the SEALs due to the success of the previous Marine/SEAL Ops & insisted on retaining OPCON thru the early stages of the Op (R&S-DA).

There were several changes to the Op but the rest is history. Did the SEALs make mistakes, that's not for us to judge, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hear all sides of the story.


----------



## pardus (Jul 22, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> Did the SEALs make mistakes, that's not for us to judge.


 
I disagree.
We learn by dissecting things.

Would you mind answering the questions from myself and Free?


----------



## AWP (Jul 22, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> The SEAL's didn't take the mission from the Marines nor did the SEAL's change the name. The Marines fr/that unit (2/3) & the Marines fr/the previous unit (3/3) were naming the missions after sports teams.
> 
> How the SEAL's ended up leading the R&S was due to procedure & is exactly why the USMC insists on deploying in MAGTFs.
> 
> ...



Having been in country at the time and having briefly worked with 3/3 and 2/3 I'd say that all sums it up.



> However, the Army BCT's Pilots weren't *authorized *to make the type of insertion ...SNIP...deployed as a MAGTF, the USMC pilots were *certified *to make the landing.



I put the interesting words in bold.

The CAB in country was from Geilenkirchen, the Chinooks were "Big Windy". Mind you at that time the CAB was divided between BAF and KAF so its assets were spread thin. "Authorized" and "certified" have two different meanings. You are presuming that Big Windy had the skills but was denied by higher to perform the insertion while the Marines who had the skill would be allowed to do something the Army was not. I like the Corps, but we can't presume that a MAGTF commander would allow his Marines to do something the Army would turn down....which is the way you've written that paragraph.

At the time that CAB was conducting air assaults all over the country, so I'm a little perplexed at "why" they weren't "authorized" to make this particular insertion. Damn, they were dropping all sorts of SOF elements at that time from the Kush to Helmand, but suddenly they couldn't do this mission?

You seem to know a lot about this period in time. I'm curious how that came to be.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 22, 2010)

> You are presuming that Big Windy had the skills but was denied by higher to perform the insertion while the Marines who had the skill would be allowed to do something the Army was not. I like the Corps, but we can't presume that a MAGTF commander would allow his Marines to do something the Army would turn down....which is the way you've written that paragraph.
> 
> At the time that CAB was conducting air assaults all over the country, so I'm a little perplexed at "why" they weren't "authorized" to make this particular insertion.



It was a low light near moonless night for the insertion, I don't presumed to know anything about Big Windy skills. However 2/3's insertion was forwarded fr/the CAB to the 160th & I'm pretty sure it wasn't b/c Big Windy was busier than SOAR.

There are several low light & weather conditions that a CAB will not or is not authorized to fly in the the SOAR will, as you well know.

However you do presume.. you presume that if an Army CAB or BCT Cmdr would not authorize a particular mission neither would a Marine MAGTF Cmdr.. as if they're the same type of unit, w/the same type of training, authorized to conduct the same types of missions.

There are several missions & conditions that a MAGTF's ACE is both Certified & would be Authorized to conduct that a CAB is not even trained for. That's b/c the USMC is not a Convention Force but a GPF with Mission Sets that straddle both Conv/HIC & LIC/SO Fields.

Whether to support various Force Recon DAP/MSPF or to run a TRAP in a hostile foreign country that might not even know an American is on the ground.

A little known fact is in the very opening days of A'stan the 15th MEU(SOC) launched a TRAP 800miles deep to recover a Delta Team & their Black Hawk, this was before the Gov't was fully acknowledging SMU's were on the ground.   ..._how many specialized USMC missions don't ppl on this site know about.._:confused:


This was the only article left I could find on it, but its a little annoying b/c its told fr/the perspective of the Crew Chiefs & not the TRAP Team who actually secured the SMU & their helo. 

Other articles at the time interviewed the TRAP Team & mentioned the initial fire fight when they landed. Also it refers to the SMU as "Rangers" for obvious reasons mentioning 2 "Rangers" killed on the mission. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/11/mil-011109-usmc1.htm


That's a mission a CAB would never be neither Trained or Authorized to do. *And before you say it* NO I DON'T THINK the ACE is the equivalent or near equivalent to SOAR. But your previous assumption is Wrong b/c the ACE is both Certified & (has been/would be) Authorized to run missions that are beyond the scope of a CAB. 

The MAGTF Cmdr would be looking at a different Aviation Support capability, one that includes extensive Specialized training when compared to the CAB. That's not a knock to the CAB, they execute the role they were designed for.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2010)

1) You have done an excellent job of ignoring a key component of my replies: with what educational or experience "authority" do you speak?

2) I never presumed that if the Army would veto a mission that a Marine commander would as well. I'm saying none of us can tell what a particular MAGTF commander would do because.....none of us are MAGTF commanders operating in that exact same environment with the same intelligence, etc.

3) I'm well aware of the TRAP mission conducted by the 15th MEU; it is described in detail in One Bullet Away.

4) Cute...putting "Rangers" in quotes as if to insinuate that they were anything but. They were Rangers. Period. Dot. End of story.

5)One last time, your arguments could be more compelling if I thought you had the experience to support some of your observations and insight.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 23, 2010)

> You have done an excellent job of ignoring a key component



The thing is that's exactly what you've done. You've knit-picked to side tracked this discussion fr/the beginning. You ask me who I am as if who I am will validate or invalidate the book & discussion.. Why? The author's details check out.

Like any book there are things that can be verified & things that can't. The things that can, check out & in specific detail. The mission detail is b/c he was embedded with 2/3 for the deployment.. this also checks out. 

The US Naval Institute operates as an Independent, Non-profit semi think-tank for the US Naval Academy promoting the Advancement of Naval theories, studies, & history.

They (USNI) have access to Mission Data that we could only dream of. They (USNI) verify & promote Naval Studies for Annapolis, they would have shredded this book if it were inaccurate but they named it a Best of '09.

*You side-tracked the discussion earlier by saying the Mission didn't even have a name until after it started & ppl believe you..* This doesn't check out. In fact it was proven to be wrong. Not only did it have a name but it followed a pattern of Sports named missions planned by Marines at the time :doh:

But truthfully I don't care, your either going to read it or not, the USNI endorsed it thats enough for me. 

The book focuses more on the many successes & ingenuity of 2/3 & 3/3 but of course goes into RW b/c it was a major event during the deployment that 2/3 was directly involved in.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2010)

> You side-tracked the discussion earlier by saying the Mission didn't even have a name until after it started & ppl believe you.. This doesn't check out. In fact it was proven to be wrong. Not only did it have a name but it followed a pattern of Sports named missions planned by Marines at the time



You need to learn how to read. My very first post in the thread (#7) made fun of that premise. I KNOW it had a name because I read the ATO describing air support for the Op.......the day it went down. SO don't tell me what I did or didn't say.

And if you want to quote the book, then quote the book, but say that's what you are doing. Instead of referencing your experiences, the book, pillow talk, email from SIPR, or anything else we the readers can only conclude that your posts speak from personal knowledge and not some book.

And we know what the USNI is, but thank you for the clarification.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 23, 2010)

> Instead of referencing your experiences, the book, pillow talk, email from SIPR



Wow more unsubstantiated claims, when did I reference my personal experience.. in fact I purposefully steered away your attempts to somehow tie my experience or lack of to the validity of the book.

If you want to know, I have a profile, it lists a unit, google has articles who we worked with & who we trained. It was nothing secret squirrel but worked mostly w/the specialized units of the USMC, some SOF, & the British & Dutch RM, nothing big.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 23, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> ..._how many specialized USMC missions don't ppl on this site know about.._:confused:



I have participated in several specialized USMC missions that most people on this site don't know about.  Here is a news flash though, no one really cares because almost every member of this board with a green call sign has participated in highly sensitive missions that no one knows about.  Other members here learned everything they know through books, movies and magazine articles.  Which are you?



SCCO_Marine said:


> However 2/3's insertion was forwarded fr/the CAB to the 160th & I'm pretty sure it wasn't b/c Big Windy was busier than SOAR.



Have you ever requested assault support in Afghanistan?  2/3 was lucky to get anybody.  It's a big country with a lot of people requesting a very limited number of air assets.  CAB could very well have been busier than SOAR.



SCCO_Marine said:


> There are several missions & conditions that a MAGTF's ACE is both Certified & would be Authorized to conduct that a CAB is not even trained for. That's b/c the USMC is not a Convention Force but a GPF with Mission Sets that straddle both Conv/HIC & LIC/SO Fields.



You have a lot more confidence in the ACE than I do.  What special certification do they have?  I have been denied medevac by our ACE because they didn't want to land in a hot zone while TF 101 Eagle Assault recovered wounded off the hood of a HMMWV in the middle of a gun fight.  Just because some Force Recon dudes might end in the back of their bird doesn't make them special.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 23, 2010)

SCCO_Marine said:


> Really, now that's a stretch. It can't be a simple answer like the information on this site is wrong...
> 
> Nobody's here to degrade M. Luttrell, I read "Lone Survivor" & liked it. "Victory Point" contains a lot of in depth & accurate info on Red Wings & the Ops that led up to & followed it.
> 
> ...


 
How this for a stretch YOU ARE WRONG you are taking the review form a bunch of hacks behind a desk. How about I give you some FACTS you are drawing attention to yourself and it has been noticed (FACT). Since you have been noticed YOU are now on my RADAR (FACT). Which means chances are you will be BANNED (NOT A FACT YET) if you don't quit playing know it all. You don't work for the Naval Institute (FACT). You are smarter than the average college student (FACT) but it does not mean you are smarter than me (FACT). Unless you where on the ground or have intimate knowledge of what happened and not just from reading a books please keep your fingers off the keyboard.

Have a great PB day


----------



## 8'Duece (Jul 23, 2010)

Did anybody read the book "Victory Point?"


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jul 23, 2010)

I've been looking for the sticky that states *'When posting from an outside source or website, use quotations for the post so that the info does not appear to be original information posted by an original poster'*, but can't seem to find it.

IOW, if you're not a BTDT and weren't present for the op, make it plainly so in your post.

Research is cool, hell, I research all the time, but to plagiarize another url as my own / your own words is a no-no.

:cool:


----------



## Teufel (Jul 24, 2010)

Diesel_Actual said:


> Looking for some opinions on this book " Victory Point: Operation Red Wings and Operation Whalers"
> I've started reading it, and I am reservations about it, mainly that it serves as a complete rebuttal to Marcus Luttrell's account of the operation, stopping just short of calling him completely full of shit. I have found alot of contradictions in the book.
> 
> The author claims that he had access to classified After Action Reports.(Which I find highly unlikely)
> ...


 
I will attempt to address some of your questions before this thread gets entirely off track and closed.

There are two sides to every story.  It would not surprise me if the account related in Lone Survivor was somewhat "exaggerated" or was missing some details.  Any combat veteran can tell you that recollections of battles are not entirely reliable because you really can't trust your memory.  Your mind is subject to a host of human factors to include combat stress, physical trauma, time distortion, tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.  This is why we compile debriefs and after action reports from multiple personnel from various vantage points.  Marcus Luttrell tried his best to tell his story according to how he remembered it.  

That being said, Luttrell's book was co-written by a New York Time bestselling FICTION author who made his name writing cheesy military thriller novels.  Keep that in mind when you read the book.  Patrick Robinson is out to entertain readers and make money.  He is not trying to tell a factual, unbiased account of what happened.  Dick Couch would have been a better co-author in my opinion because he is ex military and has produced some excellent NON FICTION NSW and SOF books.  (ironically, Dick Couch is a USNI author).  Ed Darack (Victory Point) is an independent photographer and writer who has mostly written books about his "adventures" traveling to the andes, Baja California etc.  Until Victory Point was written, he was most famous for his photography.  Do you think an unknown writer would benefit from some controversy like we are seeing in this thread?  I bought the book to learn more about it and I am sure I am not the only one (granted I saw it in the four dollar bargain bin but hey profit is profit).  So both authors have reasons to be less than truthful.  So I would say neither account can be considered entirely factual and the truth is somewhere inbetween.  It doesn't mean that you shouldn't read either book.  There is something to learn in each of them.

Two: I am going to do a test with you.  I am going to get twenty to thirty of my buddies and shoot at you with AKs.  Then after ten minutes Freefalling is going to shoot at you with 100 of his friends but I won't tell you who is going first.  Bet you can't tell the difference.  Now do it after you have been shot, your friends are dying and you are evading.   20-30 dudes is a lot of dudes.  It isn't easy determining the size of an enemy force under fire, especially when all you see is brief snapshots of battle as you try to raise your head to look around without getting shot.  It is perfectly reasonable for him to be off by a hundred.  I don't care how well you are trained.  

On the other hand, it is equally likely is that the intel reports were way off as well.   How are they getting the reports?  There is no magic battle tracking system or battlefield CSI, at the end of the day they are getting that information from mathematically challenged Afghans.  I won't go into details into the various "ints" you can use to get this information but suffice it to say you will get reports varying from there were two guys to 500 guys.  At the end of the day no one has any idea how many guys were there, and Marcus Luttrell was actually there so I would give him the benefit of the doubt.  And what if there were "only" thirty?  It doesn't take anything away from his heroism.  30 guys on key terrain will certainly put a hurting on a four man team.

Lone Survivor and Victory Point are two very different perspectives on the same event or time period and like I said, the truth is somewhere between the two.  This doesn't make either book unvalid or not worth reading.  Victory Point is a good book, everyone should read it.  People make it out to be some sort of counter Lone Survivor book, but it really isn't.  Sure there is a lot about Lone Survivor in it but there is also a lot about COIN operations and a lot of brave, young Marines doing good work.  They deserve to have their story told and not be overshadowed by some sort of perceived battle for the truth with Lone Survivor.  

As to your other questions, remember that while some people here are read into the situation, no one here can really answer your questions or really discuss them at length because of the sensitivity of this operation (and all SOF operations in general).  This was a SOF mission and as such, discussion of equipment and tactics utilized could compromise other missions and personnel.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 24, 2010)

Here is a good review of Victory Point from a Marine:
 http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Point-Operations-Whalers-Afghanistan/product-reviews/B002VPE9O0/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_4?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFourStar"

One side never tells the whole story, and neither tells the whole truth, July 8, 2010
By 	R. Morden (Cen. Cal.) - See all my reviews


This review is from: Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers - the Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan (Hardcover)
Victory Point is a good compliment to Lone Survivor just like Roberts' Ridge is complimented by The Mission, The Men and Me. However, all sides of a story are formed with bias and perception that may or may not be the whole truth. This isn't necessarily bad or good, it's just the way things are. As a Marine, I appreciate the praise the author gives the Marine Corps and the Marines involved in the situations discussed in the book. I do think it was a little too much though. No one, and nothing (especially organizations) is as perfect as the author describes the Marine Corps in the book. The Marine Corps, like all organizations and society as a whole is made up of people. People who make mistakes and fail, people who do everything correct and fail, and people who make mistakes and even everything wrong and still succeed. The Marine Corps' plan to capture the bad guy was solid. Well, so was the plan developed by the other units mentioned in the text. Mistakes were made, things went wrong, and people lost their lives, but that is the way this stuff goes down. The only thing the Marines had over the other units was, their plan never got put into action (tested). If they put theirs into action and the other guys were sitting on the bench it could have very easily been a whole list of different mistakes, different things going wrong, and a different list of guys who didn't make it home. Then it would have been a book written by a different embedded journalist writing about how, if the Marines had just listened to the N.S.W. guys and done a helo insert of the recon element versus allowing them to walk in. I can't make a valid comment about mistakes and decisions and what not without hearing the, "why" they did what they did, which the book never covered for whatever reason.... "


----------



## Ravage (Jul 24, 2010)

As always, great input Teufel!


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 25, 2010)

I went showing the books account, showing some things were verified some were not but that it had a good endorsement & I was attacked. I responded no big deal. 

The MAGTF came into play b/c the insert, a low moon/ambient light insert, was something the Marines involved believed the MAGTF would've kept in-house. The CAB forwarding the insert to SOAR not b/c they were to busy but b/c of the conditions was pivotal, it changed the complexion of the mission. So should that not be mentioned?


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 25, 2010)

Teufel said:


> I will attempt to address some of your questions before this thread gets entirely off track and closed.
> 
> That being said, Luttrell's book was co-written by a New York Time bestselling FICTION author who made his name writing cheesy military thriller novels.  Keep that in mind when you read the book.  Patrick Robinson is out to entertain readers and make money.  He is not trying to tell a factual, unbiased account of what happened.  Dick Couch would have been a better co-author in my opinion because he is ex military and has produced some excellent NON FICTION NSW and SOF books.  (ironically, Dick Couch is a USNI author).  Ed Darack (Victory Point) is an independent photographer and writer who has mostly written books about his "adventures" traveling to the andes, Baja California etc.  Until Victory Point was written, he was most famous for his photography.  Do you think an unknown writer would benefit from some controversy like we are seeing in this thread?  I bought the book to learn more about it and I am sure I am not the only one (granted I saw it in the four dollar bargain bin but hey profit is profit).
> 
> ...Lone Survivor and Victory Point are two very different perspectives on the same event or time period and like I said, the truth is somewhere between the two. This doesn't make either book unvalid or not worth reading. *Victory Point is a good book, everyone should read it. People make it out to be some sort of counter Lone Survivor book, but it really isn't. Sure there is a lot about Lone Survivor in it but there is also a lot about COIN operations and a lot of brave, young Marines doing good work.* They deserve to have their story told and not be overshadowed by some sort of perceived battle for the truth with Lone Survivor.


 

Funny thing is I said the same thing, BUT I'm glad I drew fire.

B/c whether you think the book 100% true, 50 or 75% it was getting a RAW DEAL on this site. I could've put word for word what Teufel just put up there & it would've been the same result, but that's cool. Whether its b/c he's "Verified SOF" or been on the site for awhile IDK or care. 


What I do know is right now if someone doesn't know much about this book, there's a post up that no one's going to tear into just b/c or they think its a diss to Lutrell.

A FAIR Assessment wasn't on there last week, but its up there now.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 25, 2010)

> Funny thing is I said the same thing, BUT I'm glad I drew fire.
> 
> B/c whether you think the book 100% true, 50 or 75% it was getting a RAW DEAL on this site. I could've put word for word what Teufel just put up there & it would've been the same result, but that's cool. Whether its b/c he's "Verified SOF" or been on the site for awhile IDK or care.
> 
> ...


 




SCCO_Marine said:


> For those doubting the validity of the book "Victory Point" or the author, the book was just named *one of the best books of 2009 by the United States Naval Institute*.
> 
> I think the US Naval Institute would have a little more insight into a joint Navy SOF/Marine mission than any of the Naysayers on this site. Not to mention the amount of information provided about the Op & the missions preceding and following the Op Red Wings.


 
Um no your first post was about the validity of a desk jockey at the US Naval Institute. Do you even read what you post?


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Jul 25, 2010)

Polar Bear said:


> Um no your first post was about the validity of a desk jockey at the US Naval Institute. Do you even read what you post?


 
your right not that he didn't indirectly endorse the quality of the USNI.. its not that the US Naval Academy doesn't use the reports & studies that come out of the USNI.


Teufel said:


> Dick Couch would have been a better co-author in my opinion because he is ex military and has produced some excellent NON FICTION NSW and SOF books. (ironically, Dick Couch is a USNI author)



not all desk jockey's like many of today's think tank/think tank lite orgs


----------



## pardus (Jul 25, 2010)

This thread is giving me a fucking headache!


----------



## AssadUSMC (Jul 25, 2010)

I want to be this guy when I grow up.  He's real smart-like!!!!


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 26, 2010)

I think this one has run its course


----------

