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.
Guess that would let some of the air out of his argument...
“BUSH STOLE THE ELEC...uuughgnghgn”
LOL!
Probably because he writes like a whiny assed bitch.
Maybe he hasn’t actually seen the movie, since that would be giving money to “running-dog imperialistic warmongers” or some such?
Sheldon Richman, shilling for the left in Reason Magazine, bulwark of libertarian skepticism. Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
Excellent summation!
The author also leaves out the scene in which "Chris Kyle" doesn't shoot the kid trying to pick up the RPG.
Wow this is stunning. Comparing Adam Lanza to Chris Kyle. Sheesh.
It’s irrelevant how or what one believes about the Iraq war, whether it had no justification or it did, it’s irrelevant to whether or not Kyle was a hero. The fact is he *did* save American lives (remember, his fellow soldiers were/are also Americans too). It doesn’t matter if he was fighting an unjust war he was a soldier doing what he was told. It’s not his job to decide if the war is just or not it’s his job to follow orders (within the bounds of moral law, and there’s no evidence he broke that).
To deny Kyle is a hero, and to liken him to the psychotic killer Adam Lanza is precisely the same disgustingly cruel way this country treated Vietnam veterans returning home from that war, denying their heroism and calling them names such as “baby killers”. That was wrong then, and this is wrong now, for the same reason.
I thought this country had grown past such lunacy, had come to realize every person in the military is honored and cherished for their bravery and selflessness, without question or consideration of politics. I guess I was wrong.
Ayottolah Khomeini:
I'd say there is a striking resemblance...what a coincidence, eh?
Ayottolah Khomeini:
I'd say there is a striking resemblance...what a coincidence, eh?
Let me guess, Sheldon voted for odumbo.
I am a 12 year veteran, VFW member, and small “l” libertarian.
The idiot who wrote this is more liberal than libertarian. Back in the late 90’s the “libertarian” movement was taken over by leftists.
I would address this issue in this way:
Military members in our country have historically stayed out of politics and have been respected by both sides. That respect would last until the Vietnam War, of course, when the communist/socialist fomented anti-western leftist movement bloomed openly in our country. Then it became okay to use service members openly as pawns in political arguments and to set them up as the bad guys, as if they started the war and made the decisions.
As a serviceman who has looked over a gun at an enemy, I thought about the responsibilities of my actions and the line at which a decision is ethical or not. Just following orders does not cut it when one acts in an unethical way. Of course, at the same time you have to carry out the lawful orders in support of the goals of the civilian government of our country. That tension between right and wrong is at times palpable as anyone who has had to face it understands.
The leftists, including the leftists who have become the power base in the Libertarian Party, have again conflated the actions of service members ethically doing their jobs with the poor decisions of civilian leaders. Those same leftists are making a grave error because in doing so they alienate the military and make it more likely that the military will support such actions as moving against civilians or civilian government in our country in the future. Dragging the military and service members into politics is a mistake of monumental proportions.
As far as these wars in the ME go, I would have thought we would have been better served if we had gone in with a smaller footprint, and prepared the playing field ahead of time (SpecFor). Middle Easterners understand raw force, but they operate deceptively in their day to day lives. There were plenty of opposition forces that could have been stood up to destabilize the Iraq government and create a vacuum for another force to fill. That is all that can really be accomplished in their primitive culture. Then you use your overwhelming force to remind them that you will do the same to them if they misbehave.
As far as Afghanistan goes, treating distinct tribes/peoples as if they are a country is just foolish. Determine who is to blame for an act, bomb their village to rubble and let the goats take over. Rinse, repeat as necessary. You cannot successfully civilize primitives such as their tribes.
Oh, and bottom line is that Chris Kyle and all those others who went and did their jobs and are still doing it are heroes.
Reason magazine just lost all credibility with this article.
Actually according to libertarians that I read, this is exactly how wars should be fought. With snipers taking out top people on the other side and thus threatening the entire top command of the enemy. They call it the Swiss method of war. Fully defensively armed and going after the top command of the enemy.
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.