BlonDeWig — 7 years ago(November 10, 2018 10:40 PM)

Hawkeye
0%
0 votes
BJ
0%
0 votes
Who was right? A colonel sent a group of his men into battle to gain control of a hill, but wound up getting a bunch of them killed/wounded. He had plans to do it again and Potter fired off a letter to a superior asking him to get this colonel to stand down, at which point he devised a plan to get around the direct order anyway. Hawkeye drugged him and gave him an appendectomy, rendering him useless for a few weeks as he recovered, and allowing his men a while to recover from their own injuries sustained in a needless fight as well as saving them from another. BJ was adamantly against it, citing the moral objection of doctors not cutting into healthy bodies (“It’s mutilation!”). Hawkeye did it anyway, but they left it open as to whether he regretted it or not.
I think Hawkeye was in the right. Even if they did replace him with another colonel to lead those men (something else BJ brought up to bolster his objections), the chances were higher he would be better, lower that he would be worse. Potter even told Radar earlier in the episode when creating the letter that he’d never had to do that before because he’d never come upon the situation. Given his years in the service, one can presume he’d come across many colonels. Based on that, it’s a safe assumption most colonels aren’t that hyper focused on something so insignificant to the point of unnecessarily risking their own men’s lives. Of course, there were several other incidences that were similar, like the one that kept sending only his black men into very high risk operations. I don’t recall Potter drafting up a letter about him, although they took care of that situation in their own way.
Then again, it is war. ‍️ It was all bullshit.
´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง