In the real world case that A Few Good Men is based on, in 1985 part of the guard for the base was a group called "The Ten" that went through grueling physical training in order to guard a fence. In the movie, everyone acts as if it's common knowledge that the base is providing freedom and protection to United States citizens. Was this just delusional, or would the average person have agreed with that in 1985? If they moved the base to actual US territory like Florida or Puerto Rico would it have changed anything at all?

Specifically I'm curious about the big climactic rant, and whether it's more a man doing an important job and saving lives but in an immoral way, or a man who's completely out of touch that he's in charge of high-end security guards for a fence no-one is attacking at a base that doesn't matter?

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post.

  • 2
    Welcome to History:Stack Exchange. Thank you for your question; please consider revising it to be more in line with our community expectations. Like many other stacks, we expect questions to provide evidence of prior research. That helps us to understand the question, and avoids our repeating work you've already done. Our help center, and other stacks provide additional resources to assist with revisions.
    – MCW
    Jul 25 '20 at 18:48
  • I suspect that it is going to be very difficult to select an authoritative answer from those provided; the underlying questions are highly political and subjective.
    – MCW
    Jul 25 '20 at 18:50
  • Yeah I'd worried about that. Maybe I should rephrase to ask just for a description of the pro-base viewpoint Jul 25 '20 at 19:30
  • Colonel Jessup's job is not just to guard a fence, but to preserve the "health" of his unit. If a few lives must be sacrificed in order to maintain discipline and combat readiness, he seemed to be OK with it. Jul 25 '20 at 22:22
  • 1
    If you feel that a tiny nation with a history of exporting revolution, professing an ideology that is based on the elimination of America is a threat, you're likely to believe that Guantanomo is important. Confirmation bias will be more important than scholarship in reaching that decision. Setting the movie in that environment makes the ideology of the Colonel more plausible; the choice is probably made on dramatic grounds rather than historical grounds.
    – MCW
    Jul 25 '20 at 22:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.