Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: American Sniper? by Ross Caputi
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/op ... ican-Sniper-20150110-0019.html
Published: Jan 24, 2015
Author: Ross Caputi
Post Date: 2015-01-24 16:02:41 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 382
Comments: 72

Chris Kyle built his reputation as a sniper during one of the most criminal operations of the entire occupation of Iraq, the 2nd siege of Fallujah.

What American Sniper offers us — more than a heart-wrenching tale about Chris Kyle’s struggle to be a soldier, a husband, and a father; more than an action packed story about America’s most lethal sniper — is an exposure of the often hidden side of American war culture. The criminality that has characterized American military engagements since the American Indian Wars, and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, is hardly noticeable in this film. And that’s exactly my point.

Your average American viewer might be surprised to find out that Chris Kyle built his reputation as a sniper during one of the most criminal operations of the entire occupation of Iraq, the 2nd siege of Fallujah. He or she certainly won’t learn this by watching American Sniper, which doesn’t even hint that Chris Kyle ever did anything in Iraq except kill bad guys and defend America. And this speaks volumes about how little we understand the wars that our country fights around the world.

Perhaps my argument seems strange — that the most insightful part of this film is what is not in it. However, I believe that these omissions reflect more than just what the director decided to be irrelevant to the plot. These omissions reveal an unconscious psychological process that shields our ideas about who we are as individuals and as a nation. This process, known as “moral disengagement”, is extremely common in militaristic societies. But what is fascinating about American Sniper is how these omissions survive in the face of overwhelming evidence of the crimes that Chris Kyle participated in. The fact that a man who participated in the 2nd siege of Fallujah — an operation that killed between 4,000 to 6,000 civilians, displaced 200,000, and may have created an epidemic of birth defects and cancers — can come home, be embraced as a hero, be celebrated for the number of people he has killed, write a bestselling book based on that experience, and have it made into a Hollywood film is something that we need to reflect on as a society.

It is not my intention to accuse Chris Kyle of committing war crimes as an individual, or to attack his character in any way. Some critics have pointed out the many racist and anti-Islamic comments that Chris made in his autobiography (these comments are significantly toned down in the film). Others have noted his jingoistic beliefs. However, I too participated in the 2nd siege of Fallujah as a US Marine. And like Chris, I said some racist and despicable things while I was in Iraq. I am in no position to judge this man, nor do I think it is important to do so. I am far more interested in our reaction as a society to Chris Kyle, than I am in the nuances of his personality.

In both the book and the film, Chris Kyle comes off as a man who is slightly embarrassed by the labels that his comrades-in-arms and his society throw upon him, such as “legend” or “hero”. This comes off as very selfless and humble of him. But the more important point is that we are the ones who cast him into this designation as hero. And the financial success of Chris Kyle’s autobiography and Clint Eastwood’s cinematic adaptation of it reveals just how willing America is to embrace this man and his story, despite its factual inaccuracies.

Perhaps the only thing that I think is import to say about Chris Kyle the individual is that a man like Chris has the power to legitimize this sanitized version of events in Iraq that not all veterans have. Somehow in our culture, combat experience is mistaken for knowledge about a war. And Chris Kyle’s status as a Navy SEAL with mountains of medals and ribbons, multiple deployments to Iraq, and battle field accolades that are unmatched makes him an authority on the topic of Iraq to those who don’t know better.

I sympathize with Chris, because I believed many of the same things he believed while I was in Iraq: That Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. That our mission was just and good. That the people we were fighting against in Iraq wanted to kill Americans because of some irrational political ideology or fanatical religious beliefs. And that most Iraqis wanted us in their country.

Notice how within this ideological framework, the emotional turmoil that Chris goes through and the strain that his multiple deployments put on his family gets interpreted as a sacrifice that he bravely and consciously makes for a noble cause. Our mission in Iraq is, of course, understood as a peace keeping and nation building operation, not as the imposition of a political and economic project against the will of the majority of Iraqis. Similarly, “hearts and minds” become an object to be won, rather than something to be respected. The lives that Chris ends are interpreted as “confirmed kills”, not murder. And the people he kills are interpreted as “terrorists”, not as people defending their country from a foreign, invading and occupying army.

This ideological framework is America’s war culture. Absent these ideological assumptions, the suffering that Chris and his family go through, and his tally of confirmed kills, do not get interpreted as brave sacrifices or heroic acts—they can only be tragic.

Let me reiterate, I am not accusing Chris of being guilty of war crimes, nor am I saying that he was a bad person. But I am arguing that he was not a hero. He and I both participate in an illegal and immoral war and occupation, and that deserves no praise or recognition. In particular, we both have the same blood on our hands for helping to destroy the city of Fallujah.

It was not the actions of individuals that made the 2nd siege of Fallujah the atrocity that was. It was the way the mission was structured and orchestrated. The US did not treat military action as a last resort. The peace negotiations with the leadership in Fallujah were canceled by the US. And almost no effort was taken to make a distinction between civilian men and combatants. In fact, in many instances civilians and combatants were deliberately conflated. All military aged males were forced to stay within the city limits of Fallujah (women and children were warned to flee the city) regardless of whether there was any evidence that they had picked up arms against the Americans. Also, water and electricity was cut to the entire city, and humanitarian aid was turned away. Thus, an estimated 50,000 civilians were trapped in their city during this month long siege without water or electricity and very limited supplies of food. They also had to survive a ground siege that was conducted with indiscriminate tactics and weapons, like the use of reconnaissance-by-fire, white phosphorous, and the bombing of residential neighborhoods. The main hospital was also treated as a military target. The end result was a human tragedy, an event that should be remembered alongside other US atrocities like the massacres at Wounded Knee or My Lai.

But none of these documented facts come through in American Sniper. Instead, the plot is guided by Chris Kyle’s autobiography, in which his narration of his life story describes the Iraq war and occupation through the lens of a number of common, but false, beliefs—like, for example, that the people we were fighting against were evil because Islam taught them to kill Americans.

One scene shows Chris in a moral dilemma as he is on a rooftop with his sniper rifle, and through the scope he sees a woman walking with a young child next to her (presumably her son) as she carries a grenade toward a US patrol. Chris must either kill a mother and her child or leave his countrymen exposed to an attack.

In his autobiography, Chris says that this event happened in Nasiriya during the initial invasion. However, Clint Eastwood decided to situate this scene during the 2nd siege of Fallujah in 2004. Also, in the film the woman hands the grenade to her son and encourages him to rush at the US patrol, whereas in the book it is the woman who tries to throw the grenade. Did Clint Eastwood think that this is a more representative portrayal of the Iraqi resistance? It’s not. These human-shield tactics were extremely rare and were only used by the most marginal and unpopular militias.

In the film, Chris kills both the woman and her son. Although visibly conflicted about what he felt obligated to do, he comments that, “that was evil like I ain’t never seen before”.

Despite these revisions, I believe there is another moral dilemma in this scene that may not be obvious to American viewers: That woman had every right to attack the illegal, foreign invaders in her country, whether you agree with her tactics or not. We had no right to invade a sovereign nation, occupy it against the will of the majority of its citizens, and patrol their streets. Thus, Chris must either suppress legitimate armed resistance and defend an invading army, or violate his orders. This moral dilemma never once occurred to Chris Kyle. And the backlash that I’m sure this suggestion will receive attests to the war culture in our country that prevents us from seeing ourselves as Iraqis do, as the aggressor.

This is the problem with veteran narrations about their war experience—they are often told through an emotionally charged, ideological filter that reflects the misinformation told to them by their leaders. And as a society we do nothing to correct these inaccurate accounts of America’s wars. Instead, we eat them up, celebrate them as truth, and feed them to the next generation of Americans who are doomed to make the same mistakes Chris and I made.

Partly, this comes from a general confusion that supporting the troops means not challenging their perceptions about the objectives of their mission, of who they were fighting against, and why. But I think also, as a society, we want veterans to tell us heroic, bitter-sweet stories about sacrifice and bravery. Voices like Chris Kyle’s emerge and are embraced because they tell us exactly what we want to hear. They merely reaffirm preexisting beliefs about the benevolence of American wars and the righteousness of American armed service people. That’s why American Sniper has been so success. It reassures us of what we want to believe about Iraq and about our veterans, and Chris Kyle’s combat credentials make it believable.

At the end of the day, it’s the Chris Kyles who we embrace as heroes, not the Chelsea Mannings. And we will surely suffer for this as a society, but probably not before we make other societies suffer first.

Author’s bio: Ross Caputi is a former Marine who participated in the 2nd Siege of Fallujah. Today he is on the Board of Directors of the Islah Reparations Project. He is also the Director of the documentary film Fear Not the Path of Truth: a veteran’s journey after Fallujah Ross holds an MA in Linguistics and he is working on an MA in English Studies at Fitchburg State University. Read his blog here.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#2. To: christine (#0)

Let me reiterate, I am not accusing Chris of being guilty of war crimes, nor am I saying that he was a bad person. But I am arguing that he was not a hero. He and I both participate in an illegal and immoral war and occupation, and that deserves no praise or recognition. In particular, we both have the same blood on our hands for helping to destroy the city of Fallujah.

The author, Chris nor anyone here had anything to say in the decision making, such as to whom to murder etc etc.

Project his venom upward where it belongs, not sideways to those of us in the masses.

We hire, we pay police and soldiers to kill or be killed.

Tired of this endless misdirected hate.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-24   17:28:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom (#2)

We hire, we pay police and soldiers to kill or be killed.

So we pay police to contrive crimes and kill civilians?

What's your answer to those that support it?

The vast majority of our country will say "thank you for your service," to both police and soldiers for as mindless and thoughtless and cliche'd statement that it is.

Do you thank him for his service? If so, who is he serving?

Remember the old saying that just about everyone, if not everyone outright, in our society used to support;

Not saying "no" is just like saying "yes."

How do the prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes fit into your thought process here Cyni?

It seems as if you're implication is that people in general are simply too stupid, ignorant, foolish, and otherwise unintelligent to be able to reason thru these things for themselves.

Is this true? Do you believe that?

Katniss  posted on  2015-01-24   17:41:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Katniss (#3)

This endless, all encompassing hate, that is now pervading society will one day consume us.

We need to step back and see, if just perhaps we are being LED down this frenetic path, for a reason, by someone.

We hire those that kill, we pay them, yet it is they that are the bad people.

Really? Rather disingenuous. I hire and pay someone to murder in Iraq and then I find fault with their character?

What a Holier than Thou attitude.

We should refuse to pay taxes to hire killers, be ready to go to prison, be self righteous.

Let us be an example.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-24   17:54:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Cynicom (#5)

Cyni,

I could give a fuk less how many sand monkeys Kyle killed. They won't be missed, and you can rest assured they had no love for us. The problem isn't him but rather the politicians who keep us engaged in perpetual war. When someone finds a way to throw sand in the gears of the MIC let me know.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2015-01-24   18:28:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Jethro Tull (#6)

You know what's half hysterical, is that it seems like none of the "sand monkeys" that you cite that live here in the States are the ones that want to seem to harm us. So we're supposed to believe that a preponderance of them over there do intend to harm us.

Talk about paranoid beliefs.

Katniss  posted on  2015-01-24   18:43:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Katniss (#9)

You know what's half hysterical, is that it seems like none of the "sand monkeys" that you cite that live here in the States are the ones that want to seem to harm us. So we're supposed to believe that a preponderance of them over there do intend to harm us.

Talk about paranoid beliefs.

Take it up with the MIC. They've been doing the same shit x forever.

Unless you think a national "die in" will raise awareness?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2015-01-24   18:52:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jethro Tull (#10)

Take it up with the MIC. They've been doing the same shit x forever.

Unless you think a national "die in" will raise awareness?

Agree with the first part, but your second part doesn't seem to reconcile with the first.

What, specifically, are you saying there?

RickyJ's comment is on the money.

You seem to be implying that this foreign genocide is without any implications for us. Where am I off?

Katniss  posted on  2015-01-24   19:04:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Katniss (#12)

I disagree with RickyJ's comment. America doesn't have a love affair war. Some do, sure, but if ever there were a war weary ppl it's Americans. The problem we have is that we have no power to change things. The majority is disenfranchised by the elite minority this thanks to a controlled media and faux (s)elections.

If voting wasn't rigged, and "WAR", yes or no, was the only question on the ballot, I feel certain that "no" would win big.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2015-01-24   19:23:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Jethro Tull (#13) (Edited)

That war-weariness you speak of comes and goes. The vast majority of people supported it post-9/11.

You didn't address your use of the term "sand monkeys" which demeans an entire other peoples either. That demeaning of human life, the reasons for it notwithstanding, is a large factor in the national mindset of Americans.

While you say that America does not have a love affair with war, it sure has a love affair with the premises for the basis of that war. It's impossible to escape in public.

So there's an ideological disconnect between the premises upon which Americans are sold on the necessity for war and their correspoinding beliefs there, with the actuality of war itself and for reasons floated as to why.

i.e., you cannot say that America does not have a love-affair with war while so many Americans support the premises for that war, unless you want to state that the vast majority of them are fools, unintelligent, stupid, or some other such thing.

For the same reason that the vast majority of Americans believe the overall premises upon which 9/11 was sold, so too they fully support wars.

If there is a lack of support for it now, besides not having been the case for the better part of the dozen years or so since we've been at war in Iraq and Afghan, it's probably because people are realizing that the premises upon which we've gone to war were flawed. That hardly means that they don't have a love affair with war.

And for the same reasons that in hindsight they deem WWII and WWI as having been necessary for the US, or Vietnam, Korea, etc., they certainly do not speak of those as having been unnecessary. Given that they were, entirely, unnecessary, the only thing that Americans could have been sold on for going to war is war itself and the national pride behind it. That same pride is easy to see on the streets of the US today. People are willing to fight, brutally, over sports teams for example. Cops are perfectly willing to oppress, injure, maim, and even kill people that they can justify to themselves (for entirely unjustifiable reasons to the average sane person and only in the finest paranoia) need to be "dealth with." The Amrican populace certainly has a love affair with the notion the cops have the most dangerous job in the country when it's been repeatedly proven that that's far from the case, in the same manner in which they've been trained by the same people to thank those that conduct our nation's wars, ... on their behalf. It hardly ends there. That's hardly dispelling the notion that Americans do not have a love affair with war when they support all the elements of it and when many tens of millions make their very living off of the organizations, public or private, careerwise, that provide all the goods and services that bring us those wars.

Those are social manifestations of that sames pride.

Either way, it's the notions that the differences between us, between us rational and sane Americans, and those irrational American/liberty-hating "sand monkeys" are the sanity and rationalizations behind those wars.

If Americans did not have an appetite for wars, then they also wouldn't harbor those sentiments towards people that they've never met and don't know. Again, it's funny that all the people, or just about all of them from that element, that live here in the States, don't seem to qualify. It's only the people fromt he same cultural or religious cloth that live abroad that are different and aren't worthy as human beings.

Katniss  posted on  2015-01-24   19:55:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Katniss (#14)

While you say that America does not have a love affair with war, it sure has a love affair with the premises for the basis of that war.

Most Americans have no clue why we go to war the zio-bankers send US to war; from Ft. Sumter, to Havana Harbor, to the Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the Gulf of Tonkin, to Saddam invading our ally Kuwait, to the Twin Towers, to weapons of mass destruction, and on, and on and on, we march to war with no clue.

We react mindlessly to staged events without a moment's thought as to the cause of those events or who staged them for our consumption.

Generally, we have no stomach for war per se, but are moronic gluttons of kabuki theater.

Lod  posted on  2015-01-24   21:20:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Lod (#22)

Sir Lod...

This country is planning for the next world war.

The clock is wound, is ticking away.

Are we the only ones? By no means.

In the Russian archives are the cables among Stalin, Kim and Mao, leading up to the Korean War. Stalin triggered it off by telling the others that the US would not intervene in Korea.

He was wrong, we came close to WWIII.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-24   21:35:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Cynicom (#24)

With the worlds' economies circling the drain, all that the jew-bankers know is war, war, war to pull their fiscal fat from the fire.

And they'll finance all sides of the coming war, save Russia and China, who may well decide to let the rest of us exterminate ourselves.

Lod  posted on  2015-01-24   21:50:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

#29. To: Lod (#26)

When you are there, are a part of such machinations, one thinks these people are crazy. Then you wise up, this is a very serious and deadly game.

It dawns on one, there are people intent on killing you. The whole thing is insane, let me off, I want to go home.

The little people cannot win, never win.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-01-24 22:00:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest