Posted on 02/02/2015 4:46:55 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite what some people think, hero is not a synonym for competent government-hired killer.
If Clint Eastwood's record-breaking movie, American Sniper, launches a frank public conversation about war and heroism, the great director will have performed a badly needed service for the country and the world.
This is neither a movie review nor a review of the late Chris Kyle's autobiographical book on which the movie is based. My interest is in the popular evaluation of Kyle, America's most prolific sniper, a title he earned through four tours in Iraq.
Let's recall some facts, which perhaps Eastwood thought were too obvious to need mention: Kyle was part of an invasion force: Americans went to Iraq. Iraq did not invade America or attack Americans. Dictator Saddam Hussein never even threatened to attack Americans. Contrary to what the George W. Bush administration suggested, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Before Americans invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda was not there. Nor was it in Syria, Yemen, and Libya.
The only reason Kyle went to Iraq was that Bush/Cheney & Co. launched a war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Wars of aggression, let's remember, are illegal under international law. Nazis were executed at Nuremberg for waging wars of aggression. With this perspective, we can ask if Kyle was a hero.
Defenders of Kyle and the Bush foreign policy will say, "Of course, he was a hero. He saved American lives."
What American lives? The lives of American military personnel who invaded other people's country, one that was no threat to them or their fellow Americans back home. If an invader kills someone who is trying to resist the invasion, that does not count as heroic self-defense. The invader is the aggressor. The "invadee" is the defender. If anyone's a hero, it's the latter.
In his book Kyle wrote he was fighting "savage, despicable evil" — and having "fun" doing it. Why did he think that about the Iraqis? Because Iraqi men — and women; his first kill was a woman — resisted the invasion and occupation he took part in.
That makes no sense. As I've established, resisting an invasion and occupation — yes, even when Arabs are resisting Americans — is simply not evil. If America had been invaded by Iraq (an Iraq with a powerful military, that is) would Iraqi snipers picking off American resisters be considered heroes by all those people who idolize Kyle? I don't think so, and I don't believe Americans would think so either. Rather, American resisters would be the heroes.
Eastwood's movie also features an Iraqi sniper. Why isn't he regarded as a hero for resisting an invasion of his homeland, like the Americans in my hypothetical example? (Eastwood should make a movie about the invasion from the Iraqis' point of view, just as he made a movie about Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view to go with his earlier movie from the American side.)
No matter how often Kyle and his admirers referred to Iraqis as "the enemy," the basic facts did not change. They were "the enemy" — that is, they meant to do harm to Americans — only because American forces waged an unprovoked war against them. Kyle, like other Americans, never had to fear that an Iraqi sniper would kill him at home in the United States. He made the Iraqis his enemy by entering their country uninvited, armed with a sniper's rifle. No Iraqi asked to be killed by Kyle, but it sure looks as though Kyle was asking to be killed by an Iraqi. (Instead, another American vet did the job.)
Of course, Kyle's admirers would disagree with this analysis. Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News commentator, said, "Chris Kyle was clear as to who the enemy was. They were the ones his government sent him to kill."
Appalling! Kyle was a hero because he eagerly and expertly killed whomever the government told him to kill? Conservatives, supposed advocates of limited government, sure have an odd notion of heroism.
Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between what Kyle did in Iraq and what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It certainly was not heroism.
>>Eastwood’s movie also features an Iraqi sniper. Why isn’t he regarded as a hero for resisting an invasion of his homeland, like the Americans in my hypothetical example?
So, it’s a heroic thing to shoot people who are illegally entering your country? I can accept that.
I’m not a big L atheist “Libertarian” who comes off sounding like their written and spoken words were manufactured in Havana.
The problem of “wars” that the United States has fought since Korea in the early 1950’s is that they have been essentially police actions fought under international law with rules of engagement.
When Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded international forces ended up occupying the countries. For instance, the military force that United States military was part of in Afghanistan had the name “International Security and Assistance Force”. ISAF was authorized by the United Nations.
Don Rumsfeld said the war we got ourselves into after 9/11 was not being fought like World War II. How right he is.
Douglas MacArthur told Congress after Truman fired him for wanting an actual military victory in Korea (That would have made the world a better place today) “in war there is no substitute for victory”.
I’m not here to dis Chris Kyle or our military but I dis the ‘leaders’ like Bush and Obama who genuflected to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In the movie “Patton” there is a scene where Patton tells a soldier he’s “going to Berlin to personally shoot the paper hanging SOB”(Adolf Hitler).
After 9/11 millions of Americans should have been uniformed and sent to deal with the SOB’s in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. etc.
They weren’t......
Besides hijacking our patriotism after 9/11 to police the world for the New World Order instead of winning a war for the American people, W also advanced liberalism by using the police war as a distraction for conservatives.
The distraction covered the expansion of government power with the establishment of the TSA, starting the NSA data collection, Campaign Finance Reform (overturned by the SC), No Child Left Behind with its unrealistic promise of 100 percent proficiency in 10 years, Medicare Part D, TARP bailout for the banking industry etc. etc. etc.
This is an irredeemable Leftist, and I will not waste words debating her - nor will I mourn her passing when she dies.
And the LIEbertarians - will they stop smoking free dope long enough to notice?
The author is using Kyle as an excuse to attack the entire U.S. military, who he hates.
Can anyone see if there are any comments at the article?
Surely to God someone is flaming her, please!
This is how the liberal dirtbags think of our military. They have more in common with the butcher than our troops.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441
Adam Lanza was simply bat**** crazy.
There is a large, abandoned Connecticut state mental hospital about 3 miles from the site of the massacre, and if not for Political Correctness both Adam Lanza and his victims would still be alive today. But to equate Adam Lanza with Chris Kyle is in itself bat**** crazy.
That is why they took her off the committee to choose the school speakers for the children.
This guy is a self hater like Jon Leibowitz (Jon Stewart). He is one of those alibijuden the antisemitic Libertarians trot out to...prove they're not antisemetic. He supports that BDS nonsense against Israel, too.
He would be in kapo in a concentration camp in an earlier era.
Wasn’t the sniper in the movie a Syrian?
Huh??? Let's see... Saddam attacked tankers in the Persian Gulf and invaded Kuwait in the 90's.
After we kicked him out, Bush initiated two "No-Fly Zones" in the north and south of Iraq. Anything that flew was shot down. Any SAM site that illuminated an aircraft was blown up.
Clinton kept those No-Fly zones intact and expanded their mandate.Anything that flew was shot down. Any SAM site that illuminated an aircraft was blown up.
Bush II kept those No-Fly zones in place, and while I've never agreed with the Iraq invasion, it's what we ended up with.
To call Mr. Kyle out individually, is to call out everyone who went because the politicians we elected told them to go.
What a rube...
> “Dictator Saddam Hussein never even threatened to attack Americans.”
Why give Richman a second of our time when he lies and ignores clear history?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
“Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving “compelling evidence” from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was “directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.”
Although the source is the now discredited Washington Post referencing the now discredited Clinton, the time of the attack was in 1993 which was before the Post had become a full propaganda organ of the Left and during which Clinton still showed he revered the memory of Ronald Reagan for political purposes. Besides I remember the attack on President GHW Bush and remember all press and broadcast reports concerning it.
I especially like liberal “pee sized brains.”
/johnny
Sheldon Richman is no hero.
Keep in mind that "Reason Magazine" is touted as the reasonable face of the Libertarian crazies. Mr. Richman is one of the alibijuden the Libertarians put out to... prove. This self hater (like Jon Stewart) supports an economic boycott of Israel with those BDS creeps.
I was thinking of getting a “Reason” subscription.
Not now.
Moral equivalence: Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Folks....why comment on commentary that means little or nothing at all!!! The proof in the pudding is so evident it sinks the “Obama vermin verbage” immediately. It’s called $316,000,000.00 USD revenue worldwide for the film “American Sniper” in three weeks of wide screen release!!! End of Story!!!
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.