I saw this posted today
I think it requires a rebuttal.
First, the writer implies that Kyle thought Iraqi”s were savages. It makes me wonder if the writer saw the movie. Nowhere does Kyle refer to all Iraqis as “savages.” It’s quite clear Kyle believed the enemy to be savages, but I don’t think that’s an outrageous statement when talking about people who use drill bits as instruments of torture and murder.
Here is an interview with Kyle’s Iraqi interpreter. If Kyle felt all Iraqis were “savages” he sure had this guy fooled.
The writer also asserts there were no WMD. I suggest he take it up with the NYT:
Throughout the article the writer asks us to try and find a broader and more nuanced view of the war in Iraq and suggests that there are many ways to look at it; however, he then goes to some pains to discredit Kyle and his view. How else do you explain his declaring that Kyle thought all Iraqis savages?
The guy talks about how the mission “unravelled.” The mission was actually well accomplished up until the guy presently in the oval office decided not to negotiate a force agreement with the Shia dominated government, against the advice of his own generals and in the face of pleas from Sunni officials. After our nearly complete desertion the mission has, indeed, unraveled.
The writer talks about our reasons for waging the war being “completely untrue.” Actually, it is absolutely true that Saddam Hussein was flouting a number of U.N. resolutions. In addition, he was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Americans in Israel.
The writer says to make sure we understand that Chris Kyle’s war was not everyone’s war…Good enough, but where does the movie say that?
The writer talks about the cause of his PTSD being “moral injury” while Kyle’s stemmed from his failure to save additional soldiers. I don’t understand how he can make the assertion that what Kyle felt wasn’t “moral.” Moreover, this line seems to fit very nicely with the eternally tedious feeling liberals have that they are possessed of a greater sense of morality than the rest of the world. That part of the article is rubbish.
The movie did not in any way tackle the politics of the Iraq War, and it was under no responsibility to do so. It’s really an anti-war movie that champions the courage and sacrifice of our young men and women who go to war.
I am old enough to remember when lefties in this country (people with the same philosophy as those who publish Salon, the online periodical in which this article appeared) shit on veterans returning from Vietnam. I would have thought that a veteran might appreciate a story that underscores and emphasizes the extraordinary selflessness and valor of these folks, to whom we all owe an enormous debt.
Lastly, I wonder that the writer is not more upset at the attacks from lefties on a man like Chris Kyle. When he worries more about the film not reflecting the political context of the war than he does about people calling his fellow soldier a “coward” or a “psychopath,” or academics who review the picture while admitting to not having seen it, it seems to me he has not reflected as deeply as he might.
Please note that in all of this I haven’t resorted to calling the writer a bunch of ugly names. I honor and respect his service, but I can’t get on board with his aim and conclusions, and there are many, many veterans who will question the direction of his article.