A Study of the film "Rules of Engagement"
To help you get an idea of what this military drama is about, let’s take a look at what “rules of engagement” means exactly. According to the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, it means: "Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate [or illustrates] the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." From what I understand, these rules are different for each mission. What this movie is about is whether or not the rules were followed in a specific situation.
The situation arises when Colonel Terry Childers is ordered to protect the US Embassy in Yemen after a large group of demonstrators surround the building. Childers’ orders are to evacuate the ambassador and his family if the situation turns violent. During the mission the ambassador's security remains intact, but results in the loss of three soldiers, and more than 80 Yemeni men, women and children. When he returns home, he faces a court-martial for violating the rules of engagement by killing unarmed men. Childers contends that the protesters were armed and had opened fire on the Embassy. Problems arise when the prosecution team and the people in the President's cabinet withhold evidence. This leaves no witnesses to prove Childers’ case.
I think that many people may not like the movie. When it comes to military protocol nothing seems to make sense to the general public. For this movie, if you’re familiar with this protocol you may understand what’s going on in the story. There are aspects to the movie that are not told, its just something that is a given in the military. For example, in the movie the President's National Security Advisor destroys evidence vital to Childers’ case. What are not apparent here are his true motives. This character is not a bad guy. What he sees in this situation is a careless individual who acted reckless. He wants the world to know that the US should not be held responsible. In this situation, he did what he thought was best for his country under tragic circumstances, and not for personal reasons.
My point is that there are no good or bad guys in this movie, only the question of loyalty and friendship. On the official website, Jackson gives us insight on his character by describing Childers as "a career Marine who does what he feels is correct. Sometimes he bends the rules, but he wants to get results. He believes in his country, he believes in his Corps, and he's true to his fellow warriors at all costs." Expanding on this Friedkin said about the movie, "This is a film about friendship and loyalty and the role of the modern military...the question of this film is whether or not the rules were followed by the character."
Latest Articles