Posted on 01/18/2015 8:18:04 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
By now, the story of Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle is familiar. He holds the record for the most confirmed kills, he wrote a book which led to a movie, and he was killed on a shooting range by a PTSD ex-Marine. There is also the troubling business regarding comments he made about Jesse Ventura.
No doubt, he was a skillful killer. By all accounts, he displayed little emotion—possibly facilitated by the extreme distance from his targets.
OK. Skillful killer, shows little emotion, and kills only the bad guys. But for the fact that these deaths are sanctioned by the State, how is his career fundamentally different from Richard Kuklinski, the notorious Iceman? Arguably, many of Kyle’s targets are soldiers doing their thing, albeit for the other side, and are probably nowhere near as “bad” as the Mafia scumbags offed by Kuklinski. Possibly, one distinction is that Kyle’s targets might kill “innocent” people. I assume we would define “innocent” as non-combatants.
Of course, a non-combatant can still aid the enemy.
But, let’s move on. Given Kyle’s tremendous skill, why was he not deployed in missions to assassinate enemy leaders, rather than combatant targets on the ground? Why do we have Marquess of Queensberry rules that seem to prohibit killing the very leaders who are promoting these wars in the first place? No doubt, there were dozens of opportunities for the Allies to take out locations where Hitler was ensconced, for example. Somehow, though, the only such operations were inside jobs, and they failed.
With all due respect, what was wrong in the minds of Kyle and Chad Littlefield, that they would take strung-out Eddie Ray Routh...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“If some country is run by a dangerous entity, it is much better to kill them than it is 10s of thousands of enemy grunts and civilians, not to mention those on your own side.”
Sure, but that isn’t the enemy we are facing today. There is no “Hitler” that we could kill and end the threat. Instead, we face an ideology that breeds Hitlers by the tens of thousands. Kill one, and there is already a line of successors waiting to take their place.
“Besides, if Saddam Hussein could have organised Bush’s or Blair’s assassination, he would have.”
Yes, but there are other countries that abide by our “gentleman’s agreement”, who would not do so if we decided to start assassinating people again. Those countries do have the capability to assassinate our leaders quite readily.
“There is no scene of the bad sniper with his family”
‘Wasn’t there one where he is eating with them and is alerted, then grabs his rifle and moves into position?’
U R absolutely correct sir. The movie made the point clearly with that scene showing ‘similarity’ with Kyle (family AND war).
Basically, Warrior hero versus Warrior hero with Kyle against Mustafa and only on Kyle’s fourth tour comes the final battle.
i was ‘drained’ after the movie and glad there was no music at end... Clint did a wondrous job of giving one a ‘taste’ of PTSD. never felt this close to the consequences of war before.
Our current leader won’t always be in office, so it’s pretty foolish to choose a strategy based on the face that this one might be expendable.
“Isn’t hitting key important targets the purpose of special forces in the first place.”
yes, it is. The history of “Special Forces” in America originated from Washington’s crack sniper troops who would shoot down British officers first, which was against the rules of warfare during that time. Even Cornwallis made complaints to Washington about this situation..
As Isreal has shown focusing on leaders is a good strategy. Take out the leader and then take out the replacement.
Soon they are disorganized and nobody wants to be the boss.
I guess Shaw here forgot about the story of how in October 2001 Rumsfeld fumed when DoD JAGs squabbled about whether or not Mullah Omar could be legally bombed, letting him escape in numerous instances.
Well, Israel has not assassinated elected politicians, now have they?
"...why was he not deployed in missions to assassinate enemy leaders, rather than combatant targets on the ground?..."What would lead anyone to think that it's the trigger-puller who tells his chain-of-command what missions he will take?
War fighter's don't get to choose or make-up their own missions, Their missions are assigned to them. If the chain of command wanted Kyle to go after an enemy leader, they would have assigned that specific mission to him. They didn't, so he *couldn't*.
Is there any link or info on the author’s background and experience? Thanks in advance.
Great post. Jessie Ventura and all of his supporters are the scum of the earth.
Can you say convoluted carpola? Utter nonsense.
For one thing there were numerous witnesses to the Jesse Ventura incident. Then trying to equate a mob hitman with a Navy SEAL sniper working in the service of his country.
Can you say convoluted carpola? Utter nonsense.
For one thing there were numerous witnesses to the Jesse Ventura incident. Then trying to equate a mob hitman with a Navy SEAL sniper working in the service of his country.
I think you are replying to the wrong post, that was not my comment....
In the process, he also decided to equate killing in combat with being equivalent to being a Mafia hit man, etc., etc.
Shaw may be an alright guy in real life, but his article is way, way off base. Chris Kyle risked his life over and over while effectively killing our worst enemies. If he and his family made some money telling that story, well wonderful. So much better than those ridiculously fat paychecks we routinely hand morons with footballs and basketballs.
I think the Coach should have nipped this very poorly thought out story in the bud: it's insulting to all combat vets.
bkmk
That was a statement in the article, not your comment.
There was a brief scene of the Iraqi sniper in a house with a pregnant woman when a call comes in to alert him.
It was not written by Coach and he has disavowed it and posted this on his blog
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
On January 17th coachisright.com (CiR) posted an essay that severely criticized hero Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle. This should never have happened. CiR has always been, and will continue to be, supportive of our Military. At CiR we have always celebrated the heroes who step forward to risk their life for our freedom. That has not changed and it will not change.
As the owner and publisher of this site I deeply apologize to everyone in the military community their families their friends and all who recognize the enormous sacrifices these great American heroes make each day to keep us free.
As a veteran myself – but not a military combat veteran – I can relate to the long hours and meager pay that goes into serving America and keeping us free. As a retired New York City police officer who worked in a dangerous precinct during a dangerous period in our history, I have a greater appreciation for what the dread of impending violence, aimed at destroying you, is all about.
The essay in question has been taken down as well it should have been. It is not a representation of the values we have here at CiR.
It appeared because of a system of posting we use here. As publisher I have allowed postings in the past that I did not fully agree with but never one I disagreed with so completely.
Nevertheless, ultimately my name is on this site and I am responsible for its content. In the handling of this particular essay I failed you all and misused your trust, and for this I ask for your forgiveness.
Those who choose to delete CiR from their daily reading list have every right to do so.
To those who are willing to continue reading us I say thank you; and you can be sure this will not happen again.
January 22, 201512 Replies
He didn’t write it
The Coach did not write it and yanked it and issued apology the second he saw it had been posted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.