Navy's "Scoop Deck" Critiques Hurt Locker Oscar

Don't get the wrong idea--the Navy Times Scoop Deck is "thrilled that Kathryn Bigelow broke the barrier and nabbed the first top prize for a female director." But they're also worried that The Hurt Locker's gritty, you-are-there perspective will "lead people to believe the film to be an authentic and accurate portrayal not only of military operations, but the military mindset."

Intrigued, I asked the author, Lance Bacon for more details, based on his eight years in the Marine Corps, where he served as a platoon sergeant in the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division. He worked with explosives experts, and was a combat correspondent his final four years. Continuing his journalism career, in 2000 he became managing editor of Air Force Times, where he provided combat coverage in the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom. Now he's a senior writer for the Navy Times.

I thought that the "military mindset" was supposed to be conveyed by Sgt. JT Sanborn, who never stopped trying to do things by the book.

There are characters in the movie who display the military mindset, as you rightly point out. Unfortunately, they have a secondary status in the movie....

Let's say someone was as pigheaded and risk-taking as Renner's character: What would his sergeant have most likely done?

There are some solid options for a sergeant in such a scenario. He could go to the team/squad leader's immediate supervisor. If that person was of the same nature (which is highly unlikely), the sergeant could "request mast." That means he can talk to anyone within his chain of command without having to divulge his concerns to others. For example, if he desires to talk to the battalion commander, he can do so without first explaining his concerns to the company first sergeant, sergeant major, commander, etc.

What does tend to happen to cowboys? In the movie, he gets complimented for being a "wild man."

No one in a real combat unit is complimented for being a "wild man." Discipline and integrated teamwork is the name of the game. Cowboys get you killed. The more specialized your unit, the more this holds true. There is a huge difference between heroic courage and reckless abandon. I had no time, use or respect for the latter, and most military leaders--from the squad level to top leadership--would say the same. A cowboy will end up in a job where he can't hurt others, the mission, or himself. And if he keeps acting in a undisciplined way, chances are good he will get a bad fitness report and soon be shown the door.

How realistic is the whole "Let's take the psychologist on a mission" part anyway? 

Not an impossibility, but not common. This goes back to the old MASH episode when Father Mulcahy feels guilty about ministering to front-line troops without having first-hand knowledge of what they experience. His desire was genuine, and it remains a legitimate need today. I have seen psychologists go to the zone for this purpose, though typically in as controlled an environment as possible (i.e., staying a little further back from point). Of course, such "control" can be lost in a hurry, and people can get killed. Commanders (who have the final say) don't often let such individuals--since they are so few in numbers--go into intense, hostile situations. The one exception may be chaplains, who are known to be on the front with regularity. (Corpsmen wouldn't be included here because they are considered front-line troops and will always be there). So the fact that it happens is not unlikely, but the manner in which it happens is.