I read the first summary in your list, and feel it is totally incorrect. The person believed this was an anti-military movie, nothing could be further from the truth. It was an anti-political control of the military, but supported the military point of view 100%. As a 20 year retired veteran of both Vietnam and the first Gulf War, the politicians continuously hang the military out to dry. They give the military orders, and the lie about what they did and let the military hang if things go wrong. This movie showed this in spades. The fictional account of the marine officer firing on civilians (who were firing on him and his men) was powerful, and showed the type of decisions made by good and not so good officers in the field every day. The only people shown in a bad light by this movie and Hollywood was the director of the NSA and the Ambassador (i.e., politicians). As far as the statement about the under-culture of the us military, well all I can say is if we didn't do this, you wouldn't be here, with the freedoms you enjoy. It wasn't the under-culture of the military that led to 9-11, it was another under-culture in this country, one that destroys other people's cultures.
Review of Rules of Engagement
