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.
Nicely done. And Obama completed the job by surrendering our soldiers' every accomplishment. Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably worse off than before we began our war against terrorism.
If it sounds like a leftist douchebag, and walks like a leftist douchebag, and smells like a leftist douchebag, then it is a leftist douchebag.
Thank you for walking right into that trap.
I agree: we should have mobilized on the scale of after Pearl Harbor, after 9/11 and gone for full victory in the Middle East. We should have especially dealt with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the primary festering pustules in the world.
Joss Whedon once said, “The thing about a hero, is even when it doesn’t look like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, he’s going to keep digging, he’s going to keep trying to do right and make up for what’s gone before, just because that’s who he is.” Well, that’s who Chris Kyle was. He was a flawed individual in his own way, like just about everybody is. But that does not discount the courage he showed in tour after tour in Iraq, or marginalize the hundreds or thousands of troops he saved through his actions.
I would say the comments are running at about 30% for, 70% calling him all the things we have been calling him.
The biggest “for” group is the “Bush is evil and should be executed” crowd.
You’re welcome!
This is libertarian mainline thought. Not as nasty as Wrong Paul’s diatribes against our troops back in ‘91 and ‘92, but still typical.
The Libertarians on this board will do what liberals always do. Lie, and claim it doesn’t matter. The only issue the libertarian party is conservative on is taxation. In every other area they line up with the hard left. Military included.
Forty years from now, a Leftist will be in a government-mandated “end-of-life-dignity” facility, lying in a pool of her own piss, gasping out with her death rattle:
“BUSH STOLE THE ELEC...uuughgnghgn”
Hate like this never dies.
Which is the main reason I posted it, vile as it is.
(Published: October 14, 2014)The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?
(Published: Nov 14, 2014)
More Than 600 Reported Chemical Exposure in Iraq, Pentagon Acknowledges
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/world/middleeast/-more-than-600-reported-chemical-weapons-exposure-in-iraq-pentagon-acknowledges.html?_r=1
I’m unfamiliar with this sheldon guy but the comments at the link were hilarious in their arguments on whether he is a libertarian, prog, or just plain nutz!
The ones I read were defending him and wanting our troops tried for war crimes. Liberaltarians are Marxists in a different suit.
“A nation that does not honor it’s warriors will be defeated by one that does.”
Another reason the Libertarians are utterly insignificant EXCEPT as a force to sink conservative candidates from time to time. But in the battle against liberalism? Meaningless.
Once Saddam was deposed, the American Forces were ALLIES of the legitimate Iraqi government. Americans were not occupiers, but liberators, then allies of the newly freed Iraqi people against the depraved SAVAGES, who were murdering Iraqis by the bushel.
I wonder if Iraqi “insurgents” fight ISIS with the same verve as US occupational forces?
I think it is indisputable that leftists/liberals/DemocRATS hate America.
Yet another commie liberal head explodes.
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.