Top positive review
Reviewed in the United States on September 5, 2015
As many of those who should know have commented, there are a number of technical errors in the film, but it is rare indeed that Hollywood ever gets the technical pieces correct. Commenters have also noted that the CIA would never request "followup". That may be in the new CIA. I don't believe that was necessarily the ethical standard of the CIA in missions post-Vietnam, especially in Central America, prior to the runup to the mideast wars. It certainly could be that post-ColdWar doctrine has markedly changed, rendering the film in grevious error.
The ethics of remote warfare ought to be on the minds of us who wonder about our future role in conflicts across the globe. We've gone from face to face confrontations where the costs impacted each side daily and considerably to "safe" ideologic bombing. I have no love for the Islamicists whose religiofascism will drive warfare over the next few generations, but I also wonder whether our physical detachment from the ground-in-play is counterproductive.
The movie itself was rather formulaic, but I think it graphically distilled some of the worries that we ought to have about the role of a Superpower in conflicts not directly affecting our national security. When every activity in the world affects our interests, then the excuse of national security becomes meaningless.