I am sure others have pointed this out, but when I heard about the soldiers refusing orders in Iraq, I immediately thought of this.

Common Sense - 10/20/2004

Yes, a great film. As for the current controversy, I wonder if any political pressure from the Bush campaign came into play. I think they would just like this story to go away, and the best way to do that would be to go easy on the troops. I think they may have received a harsher response from their commanders had this happened after the election.

Keith Halderman - 10/19/2004

I think the similarity lies in the fact that both sets of officer believed that looking good themselves was more important then the lives of their men.

Aeon J. Skoble - 10/18/2004

Fair enough. I was just reading the latest stories about this, and your dollars-to-donuts seems right to me. Of course, [SPOILERS!] that would also make the film disanalogous. :-)

David T. Beito - 10/18/2004

You forget another similarity. The U.S. troops were not refusing to take risks to help their comrades. They were claiming that the mission was suicidal because of lack of protective armor. Apparently, the commanders of Iraq seem to be conceding this point. The latest news indicates that they agree that many of the soldiers complaints were legitimate. Moreover, they have pledged to "investigate" the lack of armor on trucks on etc. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the soldiers won't be punished.

Aeon J. Skoble - 10/18/2004

I'm not sure that's a great analogy. The "Paths of Glory" scenario concerns an assignment which is literally pointless, serving only the ego of the general who wants to make a statement. The US soldiers in the CNN story, by refusing to resupply their fellows, are refusing a mission to help make _their own_ front-line troops more safe. I didn't take the main theme of Paths of Glory to be "refuse any hazardous assignments, regardless of whether others are depending on you."