First off, I think it is disingenuous to call taliban and al-qaida members "bad guys" just as it would be ridiculous for them to think our troops are "bad guys". That's just simplistic thinking.

Second, hell yes it is important for us to abide by the laws of war, even if we lose. What is war without honor? Murder. What exactly is it we would be protecting and upholding if we were to sacrifice our sense of honor in combat.

It's shameful to even suggest.

Sent by Jody Sol | 1:02 PM ET | 08-13-2007

If Luttrell had shot those 3 men, do you think the others would have saved his life afterward?

We can treat everyone like an enemy, & they all will become an enemy. Or we can give them the benefit of the doubt, & make some friends.

Part of that is like Luttrell says, you can't write a book saying exactly how everything goes. Nothing goes exactly according to plan. It all depends on human relations, human needs, how people feel about us.

My uncle said, "To have friends, be a friend."

Sent by J Rhinehart | 2:11 PM ET | 08-13-2007

Just one more reason why war should be avoided in the first place. While invading Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaida and the Taliban were probably necessary evils, it is clear that taking a country out because of a bad guess under the guise of being on the safe side, like Iraq and Saddam, has led to incredible amounts of unecessary suffering and turned the world's post-911 sympathy into anger and disgust. So do we drop any sort of war rules because our enemy doesn't follow them? Jesus said those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. He also asked what does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul. I imagine what is true for the individual, is true for the nation as well.

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:47 PM ET | 08-13-2007

I think Marcus did an outstanding job of trying to explain that his seal team tried to differentiate between "bad guys" and "just Afghani's". When you're making those life and death decisions, in that type of stress filled environment, you make your best attempt, and mistakes are made. If his team had killed the three afghani herders, they might all be alive. You can argue whose life is more valuable all you want; I'm guessing the families of the Seals loved their Sons/Fathers/Husbands just as much as the Herders families loved their Sons/Fathers/Husbands. You don't need 24 years of Military Service to know that every soldier in every war considers their enemy the "bad guys", that's not the least bit disingenuous or simplistic, just the way war is. Ultimately, unless both sides of a fight agree to meet in a field away from civilians, there are going to be civilian casualties. That's unfortunate, the U.S. does what it can to lesson the impact of collateral damage, but it's unavoidable.

Sent by M Forster | 5:03 PM ET | 08-13-2007

I listened to that interview this morning and I remember hearing the news story when it first came out. What I wish that both the interviewer and the author had brought out about Afghanistan is this: Afghanis live by their own rules and an adherence to the code of hospitality is part of that. If a stranger--even an enemy--is a guest in your house, you can't allow him to come to harm. The reason is obvious to anyone who has ever lived in an isolated rural area: someday you might need help from a stranger yourself. Personal honor is everything. Americans are just one among many invaders and American commandos are just another group of fighters traversing the mountains and attacking villages. There's more to this fight than is dreamt of in our philosophy.

Sent by Robyn Russell | 8:58 PM ET | 08-13-2007

Define "victory." What exactly are we winning?

It is very important to maintain humanitarian standards during war, if simply because it protects our own soldiers. There will always be people out there willing to commit the most offensive acts to "win." We must be different, we must live up to the standards articulated in the Geneva conventions, because it is right to try to treat people like human beings even in war, the most de-humanizing of human acitivities, and because it means that when our own soldiers are captured or confronted, opposing soldiers and armies will remember our humanitarian position, and be more likely to spare their lives. That alone is worth upholding international law and continuing to show mercy and compassion.

Sent by Rachel N H | 11:24 AM ET | 08-14-2007

NPR just lost any chance of me donating money to an NPR/PRI station ever again by running this story. Luttell insinuated, very clearly, that soldiers should be given the authority to commit cold-blooded murder. Steve Inskeep enabled this message, and NPR plugs Luttell's book (see link to website above) which is full of noxious garbage about how "liberals" are the cause of American casualties in Afghanistan (because, y'now, liberal have a veto power over the military's rules of engagement.) For shame.

Sent by Patrick McNee | 7:15 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Many years ago, I found in a Salvation Army store a really scary tee shirt from the Viet Nam era. Scary since it was emblazoned: Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out.

Sent by Harriett Dunn | 11:50 PM ET | 08-14-2007

If Petty Officer Luttrell and his team killed the goat herders his team would not have been compromised. Had his team not been discovered, there was a very good chance that they could have completed their assigned mission. The mission was to observe, capture or kill a high ranked terrorist close to Bin Laden.
By following the rules of engagement, which were designed for conventional forces in conventional warfare, We, the United States of America lost a group of the finest warriors in the world.
When the cost of war is your own life, unless you have been there in the moment, how can you tell someone what they should do?

Sent by Bill Campbell | 8:31 AM ET | 09-01-2007

By reading the comments posted, I wonder how many of the posters have read Lutrell's book. By stating that you will no longer support NPR because they interviewed a war hero is ridiculous. I've read Lutrell's book and I respect that man and all the soldiers that died next to him. He gives a first hand account of a war that has killed at least 11 of his friends if not more, and yet at-home Americans sympathize with the over weight protester that has nothing else to do but hold up a sign and whine about a war they know nothing of. And the liberals, I wonder how many of them have had somewhere around 130 to 200 enemy guns trying to blow their heads off. As far as I'm concerned, until the liberals and the media stand on the fronts lines facing certain death their opinion means nothing.

Sent by Zakk Lewis | 8:11 PM ET | 09-04-2007

I'm about 3/4th of the way through the book and I have to say that there were a number of areas where I didn't exactly agree with the author(s). Part of me is concerned about the factual aspect of the book (see "A Million Little Pieces", a bit too rah rah, "my gun was still by my side", my BS detector went off) but there were other areas where I felt Mr. Luttrell was right on, espcially the media aspects. I agree with Mr. Luttrell whole-heartedly about how the media in the U.S. are confusing the people at home and how some policies here are making it hard to fight over there. However he speaks of how there are no rules for the enemy and he feels that the SEALs are handcuffed. Isn't that the difference between us and them. We are civilized and they are not. Don't we have an obligation to fight with rules, if not what differs us from them? If he feels that he is being handed to the wolves because of the fighting parameters then step back and fight smarter. You are supposed to be the best fighting force in the world. So if you're going to be frustrated with someone be frustrated at your superiors along with the politicians, they both have a role in this. The entire country isn't bad. There are people who abide by civilized laws in Afghanistan. He went into detail about the rules and codes of the families that lived in the mountains. His solution at times seems like he would rather annihilate everyone on a camel or anyone walking through the mountain passes, instead of making sure that the people he is engaging in warfare with are terrorists. Hey Mr. Luttrell, if someone is shooting at you, light'em up! If you're an Afghani standing around some guys shooting at the U.S. armed forces you deserve everything that's about to come your way. But, just because someone has a gun in Afghanistan (which is quite common there, under the circumstances) that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to use it against the U.S. or are a threat. I don't buy it. Let's look back at our own history. In the 1800's the U.S. West was much ungoverned and there was a lot of lawlessness going on and it was important to arm yourself in order to help protect your land and your family. Current Afghanistan is VERY much like those times. Has he tought about the possibility that he and his men could have come upon the same people who ended up saving his life instead of the goat hearders. Finally, It's important that you know that I am grateful for people like Mr. Luttrell and please do not mistake my commentary for someone who doesn't support the war. I believe that we should be in Afghanistan and Iraq. Believe me, he is a perfect person for the job. He is dedicated and tough as nails and plays the role very well. We would not be able to be the country we are without men and women like Mr. Luttrell, so I do appreciate my freedom and all that comes with it because of his efforts and the sacrifices that he makes for his country, our country. I look forward to finishing this book, I hear it just as good as the first half.

Sent by Rob M | 5:15 PM ET | 09-20-2007