I hereby apologize to any American Thinker reader watched The Unit last night because I wrote a blurb for it yesterday. The plotting was uneven and the writing at times overwrought, especially in the scenes with the young, in—denial wife. 

If the mission portrayed in the opening scene was to kill the terrorists in the car, why weren't the commandos in a covered position from which they could lase the target unobtrusively?  You know, infiltrate, find a concealed position, etc. 

And even if you are the new guy on the team, do you stalk terrorists wearing a light gray, shiny—zippered sweatshirt?  If you're the team leader, do you threaten an FBI agent on the scene of an airplane hijacking?  And if you're the team leader & do not wear helmet or vest before entering the plane to take out terrorists, wouldn't you at least want to cover your face to preserve anonymity? 

In my opinion, lead writer David Mamet spent too much time portraying domestic scenes.  And he really overdid the in—denial wife bits.  I got the impression that the team traveled directly from the hijack take—down to home. In real life, they all would have returned to base and been de—briefed.  Why not at least imply that? 

In my opinion, that last scene was gratuitous.  Viewers, men & women, will want to see more operational stuff, more action, more dead terrorists & bad guys.  In its debut, The Unit failed to accomplish its mission.   

John B. Dwyer  3 08 06

LTC Joseph Myers adds that CSM Haney's comments recently on the O'Reilly Factor describing terrorist detainees as 'prisoners of war' and equating their status with the 'military target' status of the civilian chain of command over the military was misleading and a misreading of International Humanitarian Law. 

Terrorist detainees are unlawful combatants; they are outside Geneva Convention protections and they are so for a reason.  They do not meet the criteria for Geneva Convention protections; they do not have 'prisoner of war' status which is a 'legal status' under the Convention.  Attempts to legitimate their status as such, under the theory that not doing so risks protections to our own uniformed military soldiers if captured, is likewise misleading and harmful. 

Legitimating the status of terrorist and unlawful combatants that hide and operate amongst civilians puts at risk the distinction between civilian and military combatants in war.  That was purpose of establishing the Geneva Convention in the first place — the protection of civilians not soldiers.  Legitimating terrorist detainees under the Geneva Convention damages the protection of civilians and non—combatants on the battlefield and that is the greater evil.  Captured terrorists are not 'prisoner of war'...and military analysts err when they say so and should stop it.'