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.
Sheldon Richmon???? No question where this commie, socialist, Marxist, liberal puke is coming from.
”Dictator Saddam Hussein never even threatened to attack Americans”.
Yes he did, constantly and loudly to anyone that would listen. Not only did he threaten the USA, as afore mentioned, broke the terms of a cease fire agreement and literally attacked US planes.
”Contrary to what the George W. Bush administration suggested, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001”.
It was actually media scum that did this. Classic straw-man argument.
”Before Americans invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda was not there”.
Yes they were, they were training there along with any number of other terrorist organizations.
”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”.
As opposed to non-aggressive wars? The very term "war of aggression" is a made up liberal term that has no real meaning and certainly isn't against "international law" whatever that is supposed to be.
”Nazis were executed at Nuremberg for waging wars of aggression”.
No, that is not why they were executed.
”Eastwood's movie also features an Iraqi sniper”.
It was a Syrian sniper who came there specifically to kill the "great Satan" (Americans). That you missed this point only accentuates your ignorance and complete lack of reason on this subject.
”Kyle was a hero because he eagerly and expertly killed whomever the government told him to kill”?
Another point that you missed. He was a hero because of the people he saved, not the people he killed.
”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”.
Then you have gone beyond being an unreasonable person with a poor understanding of facts to being bat sh*t insane.
Libertarians are scum. Reason Magazine endlessly pimps for Obama’s executive amnesty and open borders
This illustrates why I left the Libertarian Party after the 9/11 attacks. I still share many of their concerns about the economy and social issues, but as for those who would strike at America: I want them dead! Rhetoric like that shown above can only further marginalize their cause.
I still feel it was right to topple Saddam—he was our puppet and he was running amok. I think we were unprepared for what would happen afterward, and in their usual fashion our “leaders” screwed it up. I cringe at being labeled “war weary.” I’m weary of spineless politicos.
Short of another catastrophic attack, I don’t know what will wake enough of the electorate up to change this disastrous course we have taken. For myself, I intend to support the candidate with the most hawkish foreign policy. Screw free community college... fund the armed forces properly and turn them loose!
***Iraq did not invade America or attack Americans.***
USS STARK. 37 US sailors dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
Can someone find and post the Baghdad billboard showing Saddam Hussein gloating over the twin towers burning?
He wasn’t so much our “puppet” as he was a counterweight or cats-paw against the recently radicalized Islamic regime in Iran. I was there for that ball game, so do not doubt me.
Our 'leaders' believe in democracy as universal good. In doing so, they commit a fundamental error. Democracy is only as good as the electorate. Good people will elect good leaders. Decadent people will elect decadent leaders. Islamic fanatics will elect islamic fanatics. The collapse of Iraq into squabbling islamic nuttiness was entirely predictable.
Excellent!
I and many others here served in the military to preserve his right to say whatever he wants.
Sorry I did, in this case.
.
More of (un)Reason’s endless blather!
.
Two words
Salman Pak
.
To be perfect, you needed Obama’s son Travon in your list!
.
You’re just preaching to the choir here. Why not post comments on the site of the stupid article itself? :-)
"Our puppet"? Proof of *that* assertion?
the infowarrior
1991 cease fire agreement:
http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Update on Iraq’s compliance:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/crs/Crsiraq2.htm
Both of these prove that little Shelly hasn’t got a clue about Iraq.
Because this is the forum I choose to participate on. Why are you suggesting people leave FR to go to another site?
Uh the NSA program was around a lot longer than 2001.
Here is one for Ramadi:
http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=307606
For which the folks in Iraqi Kurdistan thanked us in radio, TV and print ads.
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.