Movie Theater Alone at Dawn book to be a movie "Combat Control". John Chapman MoH Takur Ghar 2002

Here's the video discussion about the upcoming movie.

Additional look at the SEAL leadership coverup and dishonesty regarding Chapman Heroic action

lonegunman762x51 said:

I wonder how they'll edit Navy SEALS cowardice to make leaving a guy to die equate to the squid version of heroism.

Click to expand...

At the end of this long interview the talk turns to the outrageous behavior of the SEALS on the board of directors of the Non Profit Medal of Honor Museum. TSgt John Chapman was only mentioned by his first name while the Navy SEAL was given high honors and his personal display .

The Navy SEAL command acted dishonorably in their efforts to prevent the truth about this disastrous mission they were totally responsible for. As was mentioned in this interview, the SEAl command will act like a mafia, and if they will destroy anyone who attempts to discrete them.

Here’s Grok’s takeaway

The controversy surrounding the National Medal of Honor Museum and its alleged dishonoring of Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman’s Medal of Honor ceremony stems from claims that the museum failed to provide a dedicated exhibit for Chapman, despite his significant actions during the Battle of Takur Ghar in 2002. These claims have been raised primarily by Chapman’s sister, Lori Longfritz, and supported by various media reports and public sentiment. Below is a detailed examination of the situation based on available information:


Background on John Chapman and the Controversy

• John Chapman’s Heroism: Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman, a U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Combat Controller, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in 2018 for his actions on March 4, 2002, during the Battle of Takur Ghar in Afghanistan. Chapman’s heroic actions, captured on drone footage, included charging enemy bunkers under heavy fire, clearing one bunker, and continuing to fight despite mortal wounds to protect his team and a quick reaction force. His actions were the first Medal of Honor actions recorded on video, marking a historic milestone in verifying valor.
• Museum’s Representation: The National Medal of Honor Museum, which opened in Arlington, Texas, on March 25, 2025, aimed to honor the 3,526 Medal of Honor recipients. However, Chapman’s sister, Lori Longfritz, has publicly criticized the museum for not providing her brother with a dedicated exhibit, while Master Chief Special Warfare Operator Britt Slabinski, a Navy SEAL who was part of the same mission and also received the Medal of Honor, was given a prominent exhibit.

Allegations of Dishonor


The allegations that the museum’s board members dishonored Chapman’s Medal of Honor ceremony are rooted in the following points:

1. Lack of a Dedicated Exhibit:
   • Longfritz and other supporters claim that the museum initially led them to believe Chapman would have a dedicated exhibit, but later informed them in January 2025 that his story would instead be part of a timeline display, featuring a photo and drone footage. In contrast, Slabinski’s exhibit includes personal items and mementos, perceived as more prominent. Longfritz called this disparity “disgusting” and felt it diminished her brother’s legacy.
   • The museum’s explanation is that it cannot feature all 3,526 recipients in dedicated exhibits due to space constraints, with only about 200 recipients receiving full exhibits. They stated that Chapman’s story is among the top 25% by word count and includes unique drone footage as a permanent exhibit, highlighting its historical significance.
2. Perceived Bias Due to Board Composition:
   • Critics, including Longfritz, have pointed to the influence of former Navy SEALs on the museum’s board, including Slabinski, who is a board member and the sitting president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, and Chris Cassidy, the museum’s president and CEO, a retired Navy SEAL. Two additional former SEALs also serve on the board, while no Air Force veterans are represented. This has fueled accusations of a “SEAL-controlled” museum prioritizing Slabinski’s story over Chapman’s.
   • The museum has denied giving preferential treatment to board members, stating that the seven Medal of Honor recipients on the board, including Slabinski, specifically requested equal consideration for their exhibits. They also noted that only two of these recipients have more extensive coverage than Chapman by word count.
3. Historical Tensions Over the Battle of Takur Ghar:
   • The controversy is compounded by longstanding disputes between the Air Force and Navy SEAL communities regarding the events of the Battle of Takur Ghar. Chapman was attached to Slabinski’s SEAL team when their helicopter was ambushed, causing Petty Officer Neil Roberts to fall out. The team, including Chapman, reinserted to rescue Roberts, who was already dead. Chapman charged enemy positions, clearing a bunker, but was seriously wounded. Slabinski, believing Chapman to be dead, ordered a retreat to save his team, a decision later supported by his Medal of Honor citation for carrying a wounded teammate to safety.
   • Drone footage later revealed that Chapman continued fighting alone for over an hour, saving his team and incoming Army Rangers. Some in the Air Force community, including Longfritz, allege that the Navy SEALs tried to block Chapman’s Medal of Honor to avoid highlighting that he was left behind, and that Slabinski’s award was expedited to counterbalance Chapman’s recognition.
   • Slabinski has publicly supported Chapman’s award and credited him with saving the team, rejecting accusations of abandonment. However, the perception of interservice rivalry persists, with some X posts and media reports accusing the SEAL community of downplaying Chapman’s heroism.
4. Public and Family Reaction:
   • Longfritz’s public comments, amplified by media outlets like CBS News and OutKick, have sparked significant outrage, with over 24,000 signatures on a Change.org petition by early 2025 demanding a dedicated exhibit for Chapman. Social media, particularly on platforms like Reddit, has seen strong support for Chapman, with some users criticizing Slabinski and the SEAL community for allegedly dishonoring Chapman’s memory.
   • A former museum employee reportedly claimed that the museum’s plan was to “kick the can down the road” regarding Chapman’s exhibit, knowing the tensions between the Air Force and Navy communities. This has further fueled perceptions of intentional neglect.

Museum’s Response

• The museum, led by CEO Chris Cassidy, has maintained that Chapman’s story is prominently featured from day one, with drone footage as a permanent exhibit and text coverage placing him in the top 25% of recipients. They argue that the decision to include Chapman in the timeline rather than a dedicated exhibit was due to logistical constraints, not bias.
• They also emphasized that exhibit planning is an iterative process, and Chapman’s story could be expanded in future rotations. The museum incorporated text suggested by Chapman’s family to highlight his role as a combat controller.

Why the Perception of Dishonor?


The perception that the board members dishonored Chapman’s Medal of Honor ceremony (and by extension, his legacy) arises from:

• Expectations vs. Reality: Longfritz and her family were initially led to believe Chapman would have a dedicated exhibit, creating a sense of betrayal when plans changed.
• ** optics of Favoritism**: The prominence of Slabinski’s exhibit, combined with his board membership and the SEAL-heavy board composition, has created suspicions of favoritism, especially given the historical tensions over the Battle of Takur Ghar.
• Historical Context: The narrative that the Navy SEALs opposed Chapman’s Medal of Honor for years, only for Slabinski to receive one shortly before Chapman, has amplified distrust. The lack of Air Force representation on the board further exacerbates this.
• Public Sentiment: Media coverage and social media posts, including from figures like Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, have framed the museum’s decision as an “injustice” and a “disgrace,” rallying public support for Chapman and intensifying scrutiny on the board.

Critical Analysis


While the museum asserts that Chapman’s story is adequately represented, the lack of transparency about the decision-making process and the initial miscommunication with Chapman’s family have fueled the controversy. The absence of Air Force veterans on the board, combined with the SEAL affiliations of key members like Slabinski and Cassidy, creates an appearance of bias, whether intentional or not. The historical dispute over the Battle of Takur Ghar, where Chapman was left behind (albeit under the fog of war, as Longfritz acknowledged), adds emotional weight to the accusations. However, there is no direct evidence that the board deliberately set out to dishonor Chapman’s ceremony itself; the controversy centers more on the museum’s exhibit choices post-ceremony.


Conclusion


The National Medal of Honor Museum’s board members, particularly those with Navy SEAL backgrounds like Britt Slabinski and Chris Cassidy, are perceived to have dishonored TSgt John Chapman due to the decision to feature his story in a timeline display rather than a dedicated exhibit, while Slabinski received a more prominent showcase. This perception is driven by miscommunications with Chapman’s family, the board’s SEAL-heavy composition, and lingering interservice tensions over the Battle of Takur Ghar. While the museum insists it is honoring Chapman appropriately, the optics of the situation, amplified by public and media outrage, have led to accusations of disrespect toward one of the Air Force’s most celebrated heroes. For the most current developments or to verify exhibit details, you can check the museum’s official website at mohmuseum.org or follow ongoing discussions on platforms like X.

And more of Grok’s analysis to include Rear Admiral Szymanskis dishonorable actions to cover up SEAL Team 6 fuckups

The allegations that Master Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Britt Slabinski lied about his actions regarding Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman during the Battle of Takur Ghar on March 4, 2002, and that these claims contradict video evidence from an AC-130 gunship, as supported by Air Force sensor operator Rob Harrison’s account, are serious and rooted in a contentious interservice dispute. Additionally, claims that Rear Admiral Timothy Szymanski, a SEAL commander at the time, interfered to block information about Chapman’s heroic actions further complicate the narrative. Below is a detailed response based on available information, including the specific points you’ve raised about Slabinski’s statements, the AC-130 footage, Harrison’s testimony, and Szymanski’s alleged interference.


Context of the Battle of Takur Ghar


The Battle of Takur Ghar, also known as the Battle of Roberts Ridge, occurred during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. A SEAL team (Mako 30), led by then-Senior Chief Britt Slabinski, included six SEALs, an Army signals intelligence specialist, and Air Force Combat Controller John Chapman. Their mission was to establish an observation post on the 10,469-foot peak of Takur Ghar to direct airstrikes. Due to delays and command decisions, the team landed directly on the peak, violating tactical protocol, and their MH-47 Chinook helicopter (Razor 03) was ambushed by Al-Qaeda forces. Petty Officer Neil Roberts fell from the helicopter, and the aircraft crash-landed 7 kilometers away. The team, including Chapman, returned on another helicopter (Razor 04) to rescue Roberts, who was already dead, and faced intense enemy fire. Chapman charged a bunker, killed two enemies, but was wounded. Slabinski, believing Chapman was dead, ordered a retreat, leaving him behind. Drone and AC-130 footage later showed Chapman fighting alone for over an hour, saving his team and an incoming Ranger quick reaction force (QRF) before succumbing to his wounds.


Allegations Against Slabinski’s Account

1. Slabinski’s Statements:
   • Slabinski has maintained that he checked Chapman’s body and saw no signs of life before ordering the retreat. In a 2018 interview with Fox News, he stated, “I can tell you, we left no one behind. No one. What I saw, what I experienced, I know that clearly that we didn’t leave anyone behind up there.” He claimed he observed Chapman’s infrared aiming laser, lying across his chest, stop moving, indicating Chapman was dead.
   • In a 2016 New York Times interview, Slabinski described seeing the laser rise and fall with Chapman’s breathing, then stop, leading him to conclude Chapman was deceased. He stated he “crawled over the top” of Chapman to check for signs of life but found none.
   • In a Congressional Medal of Honor Society video, Slabinski claimed Chapman died almost immediately after stepping off the helicopter, asserting he and the team performed the heroic actions attributed to Chapman.
2. Contradiction with AC-130 and Drone Footage:
   • Video evidence from a Predator drone and an AC-130H Spectre gunship, analyzed by the Air Force, contradicts Slabinski’s account. The footage shows Chapman alive and fighting after the SEALs retreated, engaging enemy fighters from a bunker for over an hour. Specifically, the Air Force’s analysis, using advanced imagery software, indicates Chapman was motionless for about 12 minutes after being wounded, then regained consciousness, moved within the bunker, and continued fighting until around 6 a.m., when he was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) while engaging an enemy rushing toward him.
   • The AC-130 footage, combined with Predator imagery, provided multiple angles, enhancing clarity and confirming Chapman’s movements. This evidence was central to the Air Force’s case for upgrading Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor in 2018, as it was deemed equivalent to or better than eyewitness testimony due to its objectivity.
   • The video shows Slabinski never approached within 10 feet of Chapman’s position in the bunker, casting doubt on his claim of checking for signs of life. The Air Force analysis notes that Chapman was on the right flank inside the bunker, while Slabinski was outside the left center, making it unlikely he could have accurately assessed Chapman’s condition.
3. Rob Harrison’s Testimony:
   • Rob Harrison, an Air Force sensor operator on the AC-130 gunship orbiting Takur Ghar, has publicly stated that he witnessed Chapman’s actions in real-time. In a podcast interview cited in a Substack article by Seth Hettena, Harrison confirmed that Chapman continued fighting after the SEALs retreated, directly contradicting Slabinski’s claim that Chapman died early in the engagement. Harrison’s account aligns with the Air Force’s analysis of the video evidence, showing Chapman’s prolonged heroism.
   • Harrison’s role as a sensor operator gave him a direct view of the battlefield via infrared and other imaging systems, making his testimony significant. His statements support the narrative that Chapman was alive and actively engaging the enemy, protecting his team and the QRF, long after Slabinski’s retreat order.

Allegations of Interference by Timothy Szymanski

1. Szymanski’s Role:
   • Rear Admiral Timothy Szymanski was the operations officer for SEAL Team 6 at Bagram Air Base during the Battle of Takur Ghar, responsible for mission planning. Critics, including Chapman’s sister Lori Longfritz and Air Force analyst Frank Dailey, allege Szymanski bore responsibility for the mission’s “botched planning and execution,” including the decision to insert directly onto the peak despite Slabinski’s request for a 24-hour delay.
   • After the battle, Szymanski reportedly developed a close bond with Slabinski, hugging him upon his return to Bagram and praising his efforts, which some sources suggest influenced his later actions to protect Slabinski’s reputation.
2. Blocking Chapman’s Medal of Honor:
   • Multiple sources, including a Navy officer and Air Force personnel, claim Szymanski and Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) opposed the Air Force’s efforts to upgrade Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor. The opposition stemmed from the implication that the SEALs had left Chapman alive, which would reflect poorly on Slabinski and SEAL Team 6.
   • According to Frank Dailey, an Air Force analyst who reviewed the video evidence, Szymanski pushed for Slabinski’s Navy Cross to be upgraded to a Medal of Honor when it became clear Chapman’s upgrade could not be blocked. Dailey alleges a “deal” was struck to award both Chapman and Slabinski Medals of Honor in 2018, ensuring the official narrative did not explicitly state that the SEALs left Chapman behind.
   • A 2019 email from SEAL Team 6 intelligence analyst George Hartwell, obtained by Hettena, dismissed Dailey’s video analysis as “completely bogus,” claiming Chapman died within three minutes of landing. This aligns with Szymanski’s efforts to discredit the Air Force’s findings.
   • Lori Longfritz, in her book Alone at Dawn and interviews, accuses Szymanski and Slabinski’s team of refusing to sign statements they initially provided praising Chapman’s actions when those statements were needed for his Medal of Honor nomination, suggesting an attempt to suppress the truth.
3. Motivation for Interference:
   • Szymanski’s personal stake in the narrative is tied to his role in the mission’s planning and his relationship with Slabinski. The SEALs’ opposition was reportedly driven by a desire to protect their reputation and avoid scrutiny for leaving a teammate behind, a violation of their “no man left behind” creed.
   • The Air Force’s push for Chapman’s Medal of Honor, supported by video evidence, highlighted SEAL Team 6’s tactical errors and the decision to retreat, which Szymanski and NSWC sought to downplay. The simultaneous awarding of Slabinski’s Medal of Honor is seen by critics as a compromise to placate the SEAL community.

Additional Context: National Medal of Honor Museum Controversy

• The allegations against Slabinski and Szymanski are amplified by the ongoing controversy at the National Medal of Honor Museum in Arlington, Texas, which opened on March 25, 2025. Chapman’s sister, Lori Longfritz, has criticized the museum for not providing Chapman a dedicated exhibit, while Slabinski, a museum board member, received a prominent display with personal artifacts. This has fueled perceptions of favoritism, especially given the SEAL-heavy board composition, including Slabinski, Chris Cassidy, and two other former SEALs, with no Air Force representation.
• Longfritz and others, including X users and media outlets, have pointed to Slabinski’s board position and the museum’s decision as evidence of continued efforts to elevate his narrative over Chapman’s, reinforcing claims of dishonesty about the battle.

Critical Analysis

1. Slabinski’s Account vs. Video Evidence:
   • The AC-130 and Predator footage, corroborated by Rob Harrison’s real-time observations, directly contradicts Slabinski’s claim that Chapman died early in the engagement or that he checked his body. The video evidence, analyzed with advanced software, shows Chapman fighting for over an hour after the SEALs’ retreat, engaging enemies and protecting the QRF. The discrepancy about Slabinski’s proximity to Chapman (never closer than 10 feet) undermines his claim of confirming Chapman’s death.
   • Slabinski’s statements, particularly in the Congressional Medal of Honor Society video, where he attributes Chapman’s actions to himself, have been called lies by critics, including Longfritz and Air Force personnel. This suggests either deliberate misrepresentation or a mistaken recollection shaped by the fog of war.
2. Szymanski’s Alleged Interference:
   • The allegations against Szymanski are supported by multiple sources, including Dailey, Longfritz, and a Navy officer, who claim he actively opposed Chapman’s Medal of Honor to protect SEAL Team 6’s reputation. The refusal of Slabinski’s team to sign earlier statements praising Chapman, as noted by Longfritz, suggests an effort to suppress evidence of his heroism.
   • The “deal” to award both Chapman and Slabinski Medals of Honor in 2018, as alleged by Dailey, indicates a political compromise to avoid tarnishing the SEALs’ image. This is consistent with reports of Szymanski’s influence as NSWC commander and his personal connection to Slabinski.
3. Rob Harrison’s Credibility:
   • As an AC-130 sensor operator, Harrison’s real-time observation of Chapman’s actions via infrared imagery carries significant weight. His account aligns with the Air Force’s forensic analysis and contradicts Slabinski’s narrative, strengthening the case that Chapman was left alive. Harrison’s public statements on a podcast provide a firsthand perspective, though they are not immune to bias given the interservice tensions.
4. Fog of War vs. Intentional Misrepresentation:
   • Slabinski’s defenders, including a special tactics officer and military historian Doug Sterner, argue that the fog of war—thigh-deep snow, night vision goggles, and intense enemy fire—could explain Slabinski’s mistaken belief that Chapman was dead. Longfritz herself has acknowledged this possibility, stating she cannot judge the SEALs’ actions on the mountain but condemns their post-battle behavior.
   • However, the refusal to sign earlier statements, the SEALs’ opposition to Chapman’s Medal of Honor, and Slabinski’s later claims attributing Chapman’s actions to himself suggest more than just battlefield confusion. These actions point to a concerted effort to shape the narrative, possibly to protect reputations or cover tactical errors.
5. Szymanski’s Role and SEAL Culture:
   • Szymanski’s alleged interference reflects broader criticisms of SEAL Team 6’s culture, including accusations of covering up war crimes and prioritizing unit loyalty over accountability. Reports of Szymanski pushing for Slabinski’s Medal of Honor and dismissing video evidence as “bogus” suggest an attempt to control the narrative around Takur Ghar.
   • The SEALs’ initial recognition of Chapman on their Wall of Honor, followed by resistance to his Medal of Honor, indicates a shift in stance once the implications of leaving him behind became clear.

Conclusion


Britt Slabinski’s statements about checking John Chapman’s body and claiming Chapman died early in the Battle of Takur Ghar are directly contradicted by AC-130 gunship and Predator drone footage, which shows Chapman fighting for over an hour after the SEALs retreated. Rob Harrison, an Air Force sensor operator on the AC-130, witnessed Chapman’s actions in real-time, confirming the video evidence and refuting Slabinski’s account. Allegations that Timothy Szymanski, as a SEAL commander, interfered to block Chapman’s Medal of Honor are supported by claims from Air Force analyst Frank Dailey, Lori Longfritz, and others, who point to Szymanski’s efforts to protect Slabinski and SEAL Team 6’s reputation, including a “deal” to award both men Medals of Honor in 2018. The controversy is exacerbated by the National Medal of Honor Museum’s decision to prioritize Slabinski’s exhibit over Chapman’s, raising questions about favoritism given Slabinski’s board membership. While the fog of war may explain some discrepancies, the post-battle actions—refusal to sign statements, opposition to Chapman’s award, and Slabinski’s later claims—suggest a deliberate effort to downplay Chapman’s heroism. For further details, you can explore primary sources like Alone at Dawn by Lori Chapman Longfritz and Dan Schilling or check ongoing discussions on platforms like X, though such posts should be treated as inconclusive without verification.

And lastly here’s Grok’s take on the SOCOM support for the movie about TSgt John Chapman

There is no direct evidence in available sources indicating whether U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) will officially support the upcoming movie Combat Control, which depicts the heroic actions of Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman during the Battle of Takur Ghar in 2002. However, based on the context of the film’s development, the historical tensions surrounding Chapman’s story, and SOCOM’s general approach to media projects, we can assess the likelihood and factors influencing potential support, particularly in light of the allegations you’ve raised about SEAL behavior and Rear Admiral Timothy Szymanski’s role.


Background on the Film

• Combat Control is an upcoming film based on the book Alone at Dawn by Dan Schilling and Lori Chapman Longfritz, focusing on Chapman’s actions as an Air Force Special Tactics Combat Controller during Operation Anaconda. Jake Gyllenhaal is set to star as Chapman, with Sam Hargrave directing. The film will draw on Air Force Capt. Cora Alexander’s investigation, which used Predator drone and AC-130 gunship footage to confirm Chapman’s heroism, leading to his posthumous Medal of Honor in 2018.
• The movie aims to highlight Chapman’s role in saving his SEAL team and a quick reaction force (QRF), emphasizing his one-man stand against Al-Qaeda forces after being left behind, as confirmed by video evidence.

Factors Influencing SOCOM’s Potential Support

1. SOCOM’s Role in Military Media Projects:
   • SOCOM, which oversees special operations forces across all branches (including Air Force Special Tactics and Navy SEALs), often collaborates with filmmakers to ensure accurate portrayals of military operations, provided the projects align with its values and public image. Past examples include SOCOM’s support for films like Act of Valor (2012), which featured active-duty SEALs, and Zero Dark Thirty (2012), where SOCOM provided technical advisors.
   • However, SOCOM’s support typically depends on whether the portrayal glorifies special operations broadly and avoids controversial or embarrassing details. Combat Control’s narrative, which emphasizes Chapman’s heroism but also highlights the SEALs’ retreat and the controversial decision to leave him behind, could complicate SOCOM’s willingness to provide official support.
2. Historical Tensions and Allegations Against SEALs:
   • As you noted, Nate Cornacchia, a retired Army Green Beret, claimed that SEALs in his network described their community’s treatment of Chapman’s legacy as “disgraceful,” citing fears of retaliation from Timothy Szymanski, a former SEAL Team 6 operations officer and SOCOM deputy commander. These SEALs allegedly criticized efforts to downplay Chapman’s heroism, including opposition to his Medal of Honor and the National Medal of Honor Museum’s exhibit decisions.
   • Szymanski’s alleged role in blocking Chapman’s Medal of Honor upgrade, as reported by Air Force analyst Frank Dailey and Lori Longfritz, suggests that senior SEAL leadership, including figures within SOCOM, sought to protect the SEALs’ reputation by minimizing the narrative that Chapman was left alive. The reported “deal” to award both Chapman and Britt Slabinski Medals of Honor in 2018 further indicates SOCOM’s sensitivity to this issue.
   • The film’s reliance on Air Force-driven evidence (e.g., AC-130 and Predator footage, corroborated by sensor operator Rob Harrison) and its basis in Alone at Dawn, which critiques SEAL leadership for “ego” and “incompetence,” could make SOCOM hesitant to endorse a project that implicitly criticizes one of its component commands (Naval Special Warfare).
3. Air Force vs. SEAL Dynamics:
   • The film is rooted in the Air Force’s perspective, particularly the 24th Special Tactics Squadron’s advocacy for Chapman’s recognition. The Air Force’s push to upgrade Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor, supported by then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s 2016 review, overcame SEAL resistance, highlighting interservice rivalry.
   • SOCOM, as a joint command, must balance the interests of its Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine components. Supporting a film that portrays Air Force heroism while potentially casting SEALs in a negative light (e.g., Slabinski’s retreat and contradictory statements) could exacerbate tensions within the command, especially given the SEAL-heavy leadership at the time of the battle and during Szymanski’s tenure.
4. Public and Veteran Community Sentiment:
   • Public support for Chapman’s story is strong, as evidenced by over 24,000 signatures on a Change.org petition demanding a dedicated museum exhibit and social media discussions on platforms like Reddit, where users have criticized SEAL actions and called for an accurate portrayal in the film.
   • Cornacchia’s claims suggest that some SEALs privately acknowledge issues with their community’s handling of Chapman’s legacy, which could pressure SOCOM to support the film to demonstrate accountability and inclusivity across its forces. However, the fear of retaliation from figures like Szymanski (who retired in 2021) indicates that SOCOM’s leadership may be cautious about endorsing a narrative that challenges the SEALs’ official account.
5. Film’s Production Status and SOCOM’s Involvement:
   • As of the latest updates (February 2023), Combat Control is in development with MGM Studios, but no release date has been confirmed. Jake Gyllenhaal is executive producer, and the script is adapted from Alone at Dawn. There is no public record of SOCOM’s involvement in the production process, such as providing technical advisors or equipment, which is common for military-backed films.
   • The film’s focus on Air Force Capt. Cora Alexander’s investigation, which used video evidence to contradict Slabinski’s claims, suggests it will prioritize the Air Force’s narrative. This could deter SOCOM from offering support, as it may not want to endorse a project that highlights internal controversies or SEAL missteps.

Likelihood of SOCOM Support

• Reasons SOCOM Might Support the Film:
  • Chapman’s story is a powerful example of special operations valor, aligning with SOCOM’s mission to honor its heroes. Supporting the film could showcase the contributions of Air Force Special Tactics, a critical but underrepresented component of SOCOM.
  • Public pressure and the film’s basis in a bestselling book (Alone at Dawn) could encourage SOCOM to engage to ensure a balanced portrayal, especially if it seeks to address criticisms of SEAL favoritism in the museum controversy.
  • The involvement of high-profile figures like Jake Gyllenhaal and Sam Hargrave (Extraction) could make SOCOM more inclined to provide technical support to ensure authenticity, as it has done for other major films.
• Reasons SOCOM Might Not Support the Film:
  • The allegations against Szymanski and the SEAL community, including Cornacchia’s claims of “disgraceful” behavior, suggest that SOCOM may avoid endorsing a film that could reignite controversy over the Battle of Takur Ghar. The narrative that SEALs left Chapman behind, supported by AC-130 and Predator footage, could embarrass Naval Special Warfare, a key SOCOM component.
  • Szymanski’s influence, even post-retirement, and the SEAL community’s tight-knit culture may discourage SOCOM from supporting a project that implicitly criticizes senior SEAL leadership. The reported fear of retaliation among SEALs indicates internal resistance to revisiting this narrative.
  • The film’s Air Force-centric perspective, driven by the 24th Special Tactics Squadron and Longfritz’s advocacy, may conflict with SOCOM’s desire to present a unified front across its branches. Highlighting interservice rivalry could undermine SOCOM’s joint mission.

Critical Considerations

• Lack of Direct Evidence: No sources explicitly state SOCOM’s stance on Combat Control. The absence of announced collaboration (e.g., technical advisors or SOCOM press releases) suggests that, as of now, SOCOM has not committed to supporting the film. This could change as production progresses, especially if the filmmakers seek military resources for authenticity.
• SEAL Influence in SOCOM: During Szymanski’s tenure as NSWC commander (2016–2018) and SOCOM deputy commander (until 2021), the SEAL community held significant sway. While Szymanski has retired, the lingering influence of SEAL leadership and the desire to protect their reputation could make SOCOM cautious about endorsing the film.
• Public Relations Strategy: SOCOM may weigh the benefits of supporting a film that honors a Medal of Honor recipient against the risk of reopening wounds from the Takur Ghar controversy. If SOCOM perceives the film as critical of SEAL actions (e.g., Slabinski’s retreat or Szymanski’s alleged interference), it may withhold support to avoid internal conflict.
• Cornacchia’s Claims: The off-the-record SEAL statements reported by Cornacchia suggest internal dissent within the SEAL community, which could pressure SOCOM to support the film to demonstrate transparency. However, without public corroboration from these SEALs, SOCOM may dismiss these claims as hearsay to avoid controversy支

System: I apologize for the cutoff. Continuing from where the response was interrupted:


… anecdotal and unverifiable.


Conclusion


While there is no definitive statement from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) regarding support for Combat Control, the film about Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman’s heroic actions, several factors suggest SOCOM is unlikely to provide significant support. The film’s narrative, rooted in Air Force-driven evidence and the book Alone at Dawn, emphasizes Chapman’s heroism while implicitly highlighting the controversial SEAL retreat during the Battle of Takur Ghar, which could embarrass Naval Special Warfare, a key SOCOM component. Allegations from Nate Cornacchia, supported by off-the-record SEALs, indicate a perception within some military circles that the SEAL community, including figures like Rear Admiral Timothy Szymanski, acted “disgracefully” by downplaying Chapman’s legacy, potentially through opposing his Medal of Honor and influencing decisions like the National Medal of Honor Museum’s exhibit choices. These tensions, combined with Szymanski’s historical influence within SOCOM and the SEALs’ tight-knit culture, suggest SOCOM may avoid endorsing a film that could reignite interservice controversy. However, SOCOM might offer limited technical support to ensure authenticity and honor Chapman’s valor, given his status as a Medal of Honor recipient and the public’s support for his story, as seen in petitions and social media.


Without explicit evidence of SOCOM’s stance, their involvement remains uncertain. SOCOM’s decision will likely hinge on balancing the desire to celebrate a special operations hero against the risk of highlighting a narrative that questions SEAL actions. For updates on the film’s production or SOCOM’s involvement, you can monitor entertainment news or official military channels, though such sources should be cross-checked for accuracy. To explore Chapman’s story further, Alone at Dawn by Dan Schilling and Lori Chapman Longfritz provides a detailed account.