EVERYTHING that you read in a newspaper or that's told to you in a narrated film is a story. That does not necessarily mean that it's untrue or fiction. But it usually follows the rules of storytelling. There must be a beginning, an ending, some action, acting people. A good story will often have a hero and a villain, a surprising twist, and the story that we heard about the Millenium Challenge checks all these boxes. It's not a spreadsheet, or a formal report of an inquiry. We have no primary sources - no mission briefings, none of the original statements (except for a few exerpts that all reflect a single person't point of view - who happens to be the hero of the story), not a collection of statements from a multitude of witnesses from a formal hearing. So, when it comes to pass judgment of the actions, I think we should be very careful to treat everything at face value.
I'm not saying that Van Riper is lying, or that the story is made up. But everything is told from his perspective, not much context is given, and he's the hero of the story. That should get all your alarm bells riniging. Maybe it is like we're being told. Maybe there's more to it. I have tried to outline what that "more to it" could be. I'm not saying that it was like that. But this is why I'm withholding judgment. I know just enough about military exercises to see that there could be another explanation for what happened, assuming that everything that was reported in the story is "true, but not without omissions".
The reason why we're on page two of this thread already is that I'm pitching a weaker, alternative story against the original narrative which follows the structure of one of the strongest that we know, David and Goliath (boy, the Bible writers knew what they were doing). I could soup it up by framing the same facts in a different context ("embittered Marine retiree continues long-standing feud with Army personnel that try to salvage a horribly expensive exercise that his vengeful attitude threatened to jeopardize, then goes to press for a smear campaign"). I don't think that would be very nice to say, and I have nothing to back up such a claim, but notice that it would still be in alignment with the actual facts; it's just a different story. As illustrated, one can write multiple stories from the same facts. The original author may even be genuinely convinced that he adequately covered the incident. Maybe he checked multiple sources and finally went with this story because he actually discovered a scandal. Or maybe he just heard it at a bar, and decided that it was too good of a story to ruin it with alternative viewpoints. Who knows?
