Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Jan 19, 2015, 10:30AM

Chris Kyle Is Not a Hero

When did we start awarding people for blind loyalty?

1412258342001 xxx american sniper mov jy 2898 .jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

I entered the movie theater uneasy. Every lax bro in Maryland showed up at this Thursday night showing of American Sniper. Odds are that I knew someone in the crowd—I went to McDonogh, a secondary school known for its lacrosse program—and was not in the mood to make awkward small talk and insincere promises to hang out. There were plenty of other people, too—twentysomethings, thirtysomethings, middle-aged dudes, families—but I mainly noticed the 50 jocks that looked like Vineyard Vines spokesmen. I left the theater without running into anyone, but was still uneasy, this time for a different reason.

The crowd cheered. That’s what got me. It was nothing obnoxious, or even intentional, probably. Still, I stopped thinking about the crowd as a collection of stereotypes and realized they were all people cheering on mass murder. They let out muffled yelps of “Yes!” and “Oh yeah!” and “Got him!” whenever Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper, shot an Arab. They were silent and respectful when Americans were killed.

This repugnant Us vs. Them mentality is pervasive throughout the film. For Kyle, questions of right and wrong were unnecessary: Arabs were “savages,” SEALs were “The Good Guys,” and, no matter what, America was always just. He saw the world in black and white, which is probably why he was such an effective soldier. This is not the fault of Clint Eastwood’s direction, which surprisingly lacks an agenda. He approaches the film with such objectivity that it appears he has no opinion at all. Kyle is not given a dramatic arc so he resonates better with audiences. His character development, in fact, is completely stagnant: he goes through the entire film with the same antiquated attitude, never questioning his devotion to the U.S. government. Unerring loyalty was Kyle’s most salient characteristic. To him, patriotism was synonymous with blind faith.

Facebook and Twitter are exploding with support for American Sniper. One girl from my high school posted: “Every American needs to go see American Sniper, immediately.” Another posted: “Chris Kyle is the definition of a hero.” Is that really what defines heroism? Blind faith? An early scene in the film shows a young Kyle eating dinner with his family. His father gives him a lecture about individualism. He says that there are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. The sheep follow people around, blindly taking orders. The wolves use force to get what they want. The sheep dogs also use force, but in a good way. Or something like that. It was a convoluted speech. The point is: the film tries to show how Kyle lived his life as a sheep dog, but that’s not entirely true. He protected his own, yes, but, more broadly, he was simply an incredibly useful cog in the military system, a success story in the field of brainwashing propaganda, ready at any moment to spit out unsubstantiated clichés like “America is the greatest country in the world.”

I have nothing against Chris Kyle. His death was an absolute tragedy, and, by all indications, he was a great guy. That doesn’t make him a hero, though. He was a talented sniper who knew how to take orders. Are people dubbing him a hero for that reason, or is it because he was American? It’s disturbing to think about, but a nearly identical film could have been made about Mustafa, a Syrian sniper just as deadly as Kyle. He isn’t a hero, though. He’s not even human, according to the crowd. He’s just a Bad Guy, and we should be glad he’s dead. Right? How else would we win?

Discussion
  • I agree with your article. I didn't even want to see this violent film, but my boyfriend persuaded me. Kyle seemed like a decent man, but the audience's "America, Love It Or Leave It" attitude made me feel ashamed.

    Responses to this comment
  • This is why I don't go to American war movies.

    Responses to this comment
  • When did we start calling serving your country blind loyalty? Kyle, like everyone who serves, is willing to risk the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms, even the freedom to bitch about them. If a willingness to die for your country isn't heroic, I don't know what is.

  • By that standard Mary, Nazis were heroic. Saddam was heroic. Every soldier killed by an American is heroic

  • I don't think many people question the bravery of men and women in the military. But let's remember: it's a choice they make to serve. Some are heroic, some are not. Just like cops and firefighters.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan hits the nail on the head. Is Kyle heroic simply because he was American? Were the Nazis heroic? Were the Stanley Milgram subjects heroic?

    Responses to this comment
  • Last time I checked, nazis fought for Hitler, who was inherently evil- even the foot soldiers "just doing their jobs" had to have known how despicable he was. Kyle may not have been a brain surgeon, but does that undermine his bravery, his sacrifice? Are you really telling me that Kyle isn't a hero simply because he had strong, unerring beliefs? And yes, having strong beliefs is not the same thing as being blindly loyal. Jesus, how could you people turn on your own country like this? On the men and women who fight to protect YOUR freedom? They fight to protect your rights, they even fight to protect your right to verbally bash them. Soldiers, like Marymac said, risk their lives daily so you can go about your daily routine. Is this really how we should honor them? Especially the ones who have died in battle. My cousin is a veteran, are you saying HE'S not a hero? Because, I'll tell you what, no matter what you ungrateful liberals say, he is. Soldiers are superheroes, and they deserve respect. You should all honestly be ashamed.

  • Hunchback, I'm a liberal (so political beliefs in general aside) but my brother, an Army captain and tank commander, served two tours in Iraq and won the Bronze Star for risking his life to save others and I have a deep respect for those who serve. He was sitting next to me watching this movie with tears in his eyes. I sat there with tears in my eyes remembering how terrified our family was while he was there. I believe that Kyle, my brother John, and all who serve are heroes and deserve a great deal of respect. Period.

    Responses to this comment
  • There's no draft: most soldiers choose to fight. I agree with most of what you're saying, I don't really view Kyle as a hero either. Actually, it's more of a gray area for me. I'm not entirely sure. There's a great line in the movie where on soldier asks Kyle, "Do you have a savior complex or something?" Maybe Kyle as a person didn't, but many soldiers do. I understand the benefits to joining the military, and why some people, essentially, have to join. But many people don't. So why else would they join the army? Because it's just something to do? To protect our freedom? Does it really need protecting? I think the idea of protecting American freedom is so old school, it's an easy answer.

    Responses to this comment
  • There's a fairly long tradition of at least some soldiers being uncomfortable with the hero label, not because of modesty, but because they think it ennobles and makes possible a wretched endeavor. Basically, the argument is that calling people heroes makes it easier to justify wars in which those people labeled as heroes get killed. That's basically Remarque's view in All Quiet on the Western Front; Catch 22, Tobias Wolff's memoir, and Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That are coming from a similar place I think.

    Responses to this comment
  • What point are you trying to make, Noah?

    Responses to this comment
  • WOW, Booker Smith, you are an IDIOT!! This man fought for our freedom and even your right to criticize him and you still bad mouth him and HE'S DEAD!!! He can't even defend himself!! You are ungrateful scum and a hope you rot in hell!! you will rot in hell for believing this!! Show some appreciation for an American hero!! In the meantime before you go to hell get out of my country You communist! LEAVE

    Responses to this comment
  • Disagreeing with Booker Smith is "blind loyalty"? Yes, yes it is. Mustafa the Sniper is on the side of the guy with the drill.

    Responses to this comment
  • Not entirely sure what you're trying to say, Richard Aubrey. Are you saying that Mustafa is in a different category than Chris Kyle because he protects a man that drills a hole in a kid's head? That scene was horrifying, yes (it also wasn't true. The Butcher didn't exist, he was simply added for dramatic narrative). Let's pretend he did exist, though. Would that make a difference? No, not really. The movie didn't depict any of the horrors that the Americans committed, the torture. So, confirm for me, what are you trying to say?

    Responses to this comment
  • The Butcher didn't exist??? The drill was common tool of torture. You think there's anybody who doesn't know that? It's like saying it wasn't The Butcher drilling on kids, it was some other guy nicknamed The Butcher. The point is...it's hard to figure out how to say this...everybody freaking knows it. No matter what you say. Everybody freaking knows it. Torture? Menchaca and Tucker (aka "who?") are unavailable for comment. You actually do know what I'm saying. You just wish I hadn't.

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh, yeah. Read an account of a guy working with the Iraqui government. One of them had discovered his brother had been arrested. The American wasn't sure what to say. Asked another Iraqi. Turns out nobody was worried since it was the Americans who had arrested him. Now, are you saying, 94, that we did wrong by ending Saddam's torture galleries? Be clear, here.

    Responses to this comment
  • How was this man fighting for your, Booker or my freedom? He was thousands of miles away from the U.S., fighting a war against a government that had nothing to do with 9/11. I won't speak for Booker but as far as I'm concerned, the U.S. invasion of Iraq made the middle east less stable and a much larger potential threat to U.S. interests than had the U.S. minded it's own business. A soldier following orders in an unjust war does not a hero make. If it did, the Nazi snipers were hero's as well. Or are you suggesting that being an American is an essential part of being heroic?

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan. "as far as I'm concerned". That's you. Then we have Joe Biden who said, in 2010, that the stable, self-reliant, democratic, prosperous Iraq {as it was then] would be a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration. It would seem that Obama's withdrawal--which he was warned about by the local notables as early as 2008, led to the instability. As to having nothing to do with 9/11, so what? There's a lot more going on than 9/11. But, anyway, take it up with Biden.

    Responses to this comment
  • Applehead, I'm saying that calling the troops "heroes" is not necessarily in the interest of the troops. Many soldiers have argued that calling them "Heroes" is part of how society justifies putting them in harms way, and ultimately killing them.// Arguably the best way to support the troops is not to send them off to get shot at in the first place.

    Responses to this comment
  • Soldiers exist to fight, or, by existing, convince others not to start. In fighting, some get killed. The point is to only fight when necessary. According to Orwell, pacifism favors the fascists. I believe he was using "favors" in the brit meaning of "enables". But, who knows? To simply not send troops off to fight invites, as Orwell knew, an attack. Which means fighting unless you choose to roll over and die. Any cites to genuine soldiers making that point? I've heard heroes insist that they were doing no more than their buddies, or even less. Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, asked by his grandson if he was a hero, answered that no, he wasn't but he served with many. My father, awarded a Silver Star, only says that anybody who took one step forward deserved a medal. So I think you may have misunderstood something.

    Responses to this comment
  • Well, this article really isn't about whether or not Chris Kyle considered himself a hero, or the hero culture in general in the army. It's about his NOT being a hero. How he stood on the issue is irrelevant.

    Responses to this comment
  • Kyle is a hero under most commonly-understood defnintions. Smith's assertion that it was all about blind obedience is not at all likely to fly among those who saw the movie and only slightly more salable among those who didn't. Not sure what Smith is doing here, but faking the issue isn't making much sense.

    Responses to this comment
  • What issue did Smith fake? I've no beef with Kyle, nor or any members of the military. But OF COURSE it was about blind obedience to America. Kyle, as depicted in movie, was drifting until he saw US embassies bombed. He found his calling.

    Responses to this comment
  • BillFranklin. Kyle made a free decision. Many others did, as well. There isn't any example of blind obedience beyond the US Army discipline which gives more power to the lower ranks than any other army. It wasn't blind obedience. You could call it "love", but that doesn't have the negative connotation necessary. Time to introduce you to the Aubrey Acronym; EKBA. Everybody Knows Better Already. I'm working on one whose thrust would be something like, in addition to them knowing better, they know you know better. It's a chore. Maybe I should get a rhyming dictionary. I'm reminded of a couple of lines from Faulkner's Two Soldiers, which is about a kid trying to follow his older brother into the Army. It happens after Pearl Harbor. The older brother says, "I can't stand anybody to treat the Unitey States that way." Call it blind obedience if it makes you feel better, but remember the Aubrey Acronym.

    Responses to this comment
  • "According to Orwell, pacifism favors the fascists." Orwell later repudiated that essay (at least to some not insignificant extent.) Which, you know, is a reminder that even Orwell could be wrong, sometimes.

    Responses to this comment
  • Actually, Orwell was right. See the Oxford Union debate of 1933. Hitler used it to convince his generals--who'd lost the previous effort--that this time it would work. You'd have to be pretty well convinced to try it again. The other issue of pacifism is that, if it works, the more virtuous society is going to reduce its military power, thus inviting an attack which might have been avoided had the potential attacker seen a likelihood of failure. Individual pacifism is fine as long as you don't call the cops and acknowledge you can get away with that because of soldiers protecting you, and you don't try to weaken the polity protecting you--because that puts everybody else at risk and you have not that right.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment