I was a little upset when I found out that Schmidle’s article was not based on his accounts of the story. They were actually based on second and third hand accounts of the operation. I was upset that he told it like he was there and it was his view on what happen. They didn’t even put an editor’s note saying that this is not a first-hand account. I think that is what made me not believe Schmidle’s article.
The question is should we believe Schmidle’s article? This is a hard question to answer. I am sure that there is some facts in his article which are true but I also think there are some facts that could have been somewhat made up. This is the accounts told by people who were there or someone who knew someone who was there. Like O’Brien said when you are in war your perception of things that happened might be different from the guy next to you because of the high stress situation. So the facts that he had gotten from these people may not have been one hundred percent true because they were in an extremely stressful and intense situation. Schmidle almost made it seem like the American’s were happy and excited to go into this place to kill bin Laden. This was probably not the case since this mission was probably one of the most dangerous and important missions in this whole war. I think Restrepo made you have a deeper understanding and emotion about war. It shows you that war isn’t pretty and that it is a very scary thing to be a part of. I still think of Schmidle’s piece the same way as before: some parts may be accurate and some may be not completely accurate do to storytelling. We also have to take into account that Schmidle was not there so he couldn’t possibly know all of the details of this mission because he did not see it for himself, he was relying on other accounts.