• Facebook
  • Twitter
MurphTheSurf3 On February - 5 - 2015

American Sniper, Clint Eastwood’s Iraq War film starring Bradley Cooper, has experienced a small measure of controversy and an epic public response. BOTH ARE DESERVED.

The movie has made $318 million (with a production budget of $58.8 million) an extraordinary sum for an R-rated war drama devoid of superheroes. It broke two January box-office set by the Behemoth Avatar. It has surpassed every Clint Eastwood movie’s lifetime gross in a few days. (Unforgiven made $101 million over its entire run.) American Sniper deserves all its success.

I am surprised to be saying this. I expected that I would dislike this film based on many of the descriptions I had read and from the clips I saw in previews, but…

It is the first truly great film made about the war in Iraq. It is not a celebration of war; or a call to action against Muslims. It is a sad film about the bravery of warriors in battles whose purpose is lost in the fog of war.

First the controversies. The film does fictionalize aspects of Kyle’s life, but if you go to a non-documentary films hoping to be instructed in the history of anything then you are going to be misled.

  • Kyle’s motivation for his enlistment and commitment is hyped up linking it to 9/11;
  • Kyle appears more conflicted and doubtful than he reports in his autobiography,
  • Some moments of heroic behavior combine several incidents into one;
  • The Iraqi master sniper who Kyle is pitted against is a fiction who represents the evil Kyle saw himself to be fighting;
  • The final battle is made out to be riskier than it actually was.

Now, the core reality. He was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 163 confirmed kills made possible by his being a naturally gifted shooter from boyhood, a gift nurtured by dedicated training until his deployment to Iraq, where urban warfare provided the perfect venue for its expression. He was called “The Legend” by his fellow soldiers (initially as a form of gentle mockery but over time adopted as an honorific and as a protective talisman). The enemy called him the “Devil of Ramadi” and put an ever increasing price on his head.

The Film. Eastwood uses that core reality as the platform to tell the story of THE dedicate warrior in Iraq. He uses the Chris Kyle he creates to tell the broader story of the war. Eastwood does not shy away from displaying Kyle’s incredible skills with a rifle. Nor does he shy away presenting the enemy as a real and true enemy- even to the point that the shooting of a child and then his mother makes a horrific sense as it is clear that they intend to kill a number of U.S. soldiers.

But to say that American Sniper is pro-war or even a simply heroic portrait of Chris Kyle is to misinterpret it. At the beginning of the story, we see Kyle as a child in Texas. His father instructs him in a simple code after Chris has stood up to a very large bully at school and thinks he is in trouble. His father tells him that most people are sheep; there are wolves who exist to prey on the sheep; and there are sheep dogs whose mission is to protect the sheep. He tells Kyle that he is raising Sheep Dogs.

In the broadest terms, the story of American Sniper is that of a man given this incredibly crude ethical system, thrust into the morass of the Iraq War, and watching it crumble.

He wants to make war on “the evil” of “the savages” who are NOT all Muslims or all Iraqis but those leading the resistance to the government of Iraq and their U.S. allies. There are a number of positive portrayals of Iraqi allies and the sad story of a family that tries to cooperate with the Americans and is butchered for it.

Very quickly it becomes unclear what the purpose of the wars is. Kyle’s incredible ability at killing never solves anything. Kyle is fighting for his fellow soldiers which is obvious and he says that he is fighting for his family which is less clear. But when he says he is fighting for America what is evident is that has to be very careful not to ask himself or others what that means. He regards doubts by his brother and his fellow soldiers as unseemly, weak and dangerous.

The final firefight takes place in a sandstorm. It is the best battle scene put onscreen since the landing at the Normandy beaches in Saving Private Ryan. The fury of the dust obscures all human faces and actions., a metaphor for the Iraq War, a maelstrom that blinds and from which one can only flee.

American Sniper is not the story of a soldier forced into war full of doubts from the first or of a mad killer whose blood lust drives him in battle or of a mindless drone walking through his paces. The courage of American Sniper is that its main character is a dedicated soldier skilled in his work who believes his cause, however hard to define, is just and who regards his actions in war as unfortunate, at times agonizing, but necessary. He is a good soldier, a good man who loves his wife and children even when he has a hard time relating to them in what has become the “unreal world” of “home.”

Home, it seems, is where the war is…..until he cannot even call that home. He returns to the USA homeless (in the psychological sense) where he has no purpose and stands poised on the edge of madness. At that moment his wife’s intervention, the outreach by the Veteran’s Administration, and Kyle’s response when he sets up a riflery program saves him.

The ultimate irony is that Kyle and another vet are murdered by a third vet on a rifle range. The film leaves us with the haunting image of Kyle telling his son to watch out for his mom and his siblings (to be a sheep dog) and a quick kiss for his wife who now thinks he is safely home.

The closing credits run over actual video of the enormous funeral procession, and memorial service conducted…without any background music.

The theater at which I saw the film was packed and as those credits rolled there wasn’t a sound. There had been very little noise during the movie. Now the silence seemed to represent both respect and confusion. Brave soldiers but bravery for what?

Two-and-a-half million Americans served in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4,491 U.S. military personnel were killed, 32,226 were wounded in battle and 51,139 were injured/diseased in theater but outside of combat.

150,000 to 250,000 Iraqis died. Today the region is shattered by ongoing war which most scholars believe was triggered by the destruction of the Bathist regime in Iraq.

This film does not ignore the large questions related to the war but rather chooses to place them into the context of the experience of a single warrior, one of many.

How often do we reckon with how much they have endured? How often do we reckon with why they had to endure? Almost never. American Sniper demands such a reckoning.

Written by MurphTheSurf3

Proud to be an Independent Progressive. I am a progressive- a one time Eisenhower Republican who is now a Democrat. I live in a very RED STATE and am a community activist with a very BLUE AGENDA. Historian, and "Gentleman Farmer."

20 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. AdLib says:

    I haven’t seen American Sniper yet, have some misgivings about it, some of which you mentioned but I saw this section of a story on Brian Williams’ potentially fabricating horrors due to Katrina which adds to that list:

    More recently, the myth-making that arose in the storm’s aftermath has again made news with the box-office success of “American Sniper,” a biopic about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

    Kyle has claimed in published accounts that he came to New Orleans after Katrina with another sniper, set up shop on the roof of the Superdome and shot roughly 30 armed men. That account has been widely disputed, given that a large group of bullet-riddled corpses in that area — or anywhere, for that matter — was never discovered.


    I’m hesitant to fully buy into the representations of what happens in war, there is a very long history of nations holding up some as heroes that may not have been as represented.

    I do plan to see this film but I would go into it knowing that some truths about him have been omitted and the portrayal of him is cinematic, it’s not a documentary.

  2. Nirek says:

    Murph, like KT I have not seen the movie. I have however been in a war and know that there are many unsung heros. I look forward to seeing it when it is out on DVD.

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      Kyle was not unsung…he was called The Legend but he was surrounded by them.

      • Nirek says:

        Murph, for every hero there are dozens of unsung heros. War makes regular people do things that are heroic. It is only the people who have a CO that has writing skills and the desire to write a recommendation for a medal. Too often the guy writing has poor skills and the medal is downgraded.
        I tell you this from personal experience.

      • I fail to see anybody that was involved in that war, on the American side, as a hero. This was my point earlier. Were German snipers who killed Americans and Russians heroes?

        Just how do we define heroism? Is it the amount of balls one has, or is it in service of something noble? Many German snipers were considered heroes by their commanders and countrymen, but just what ideals were they defending and killing for? History has shown their cause was an evil cause.

        I think it is past time that people think and act solely on the basis of serving “god and country.” Those German snipers surely thought they were serving “god and country.” I am frankly sick of such blind servitude.

        Those who served in Iraq, despite their blinded motivation and heartfelt duty to country, turned out to be just hit men for big corporations. I will never see a reason to celebrate them in the same way that so many real heroes of WWII were rightly celebrated. Especially all of those who served with the 442nd Infantry Regiment of the US Army.

        That regiment was solely comprised of Japanese/Americans who fought despite the fact that their families were imprisoned by their own country simply for being of Japanese origin. Many, many of them gave their lives for a country they truly believed in, despite the wrong that was being perpetrated upon them. Despite all, they believed in the promise of America. They fought and died against a real threat. Iraq was never a real threat to US freedoms or autonomy.

        I have a hard time understanding how Eastwood could make a film like “Letters From Iwo Jima,” and a film like “American Sniper.”

        My guess is that Eastwood understands that in any mythology, the hero, and the ideal of heroism is central to the myth. Myth being the key word here.

  3. I have yet to see the film, so I really can’t say much about it. I can however comment on my personal opinions on the Iraq war.

    Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, for sure. He ignored international law and murdered many of his own people, not to mention all the ruthless torture done at his bidding. But, and this is a biggie, he helped keep the entire region in check. When we toppled Saddam, we destabilized that region of the world, and we now see the horrible consequences of this.

    The plan to invade Iraq was sold nearly in it’s entirety, on lies. Congress and the American people were lied to by a president more intent on pleasing his neo-con cronies, than the American people.

    The first huge mistake we made was disbanding the Iraqi army. By doing this we put thousands and thousands of Iraqi men out of work, with no means to support their families or themselves. This created the insurgency. These former soldiers became insurgents. I’m not altogether sure this was not part of the plan.

    I don’t see Kyle as some sort of hero. I think that term is used all too readily these days. He never seemed to question why he went to war. The real Kyle said he enjoyed killing and had no regrets about it. He also claimed to have shot 20 looters in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. I seriously doubt that he did, but if he did, that would make him a true psychopath.

    Just who was he referring to when he called his targets, “savages?” From everything I’ve read about this film, Eastwood glorifies Kyle and what he did. Maybe not in a direct way, but a more subtle way. Again, I have not seen the film yet. I will say that in reality, there is no glory in war. War is barbarous and mean in every sense of the word. This is why I believe that war should only be waged as a last resort. The Iraq war was far from being our last resort in dealing with Saddam.

    • Nirek says:

      KT, You and I seem to think alike. You are right about the last resort. Like you said we destabilised the area. We also cost the American a couple trillion tax dollars.

      • Not to mention nearly 5,000 American lives, 32,000 Americans wounded, many maimed for life, and roughly 250,000 Iraqi lives.

        The American tax payers will be paying for this war for decades to come.

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      We have discussed your very well structured and highly credible narrative re. the debacle that was the war in Iraq and its aftermath. The film captures the spirit of your thesis. The real Kyle was, as you say, not the person we see in the film…but that is what biopics do…they use the person’s story as the raw skeleton to build another persona onto. I did not see the glorification you speak of…I expected to and there are the trappings of glory but it feels likes false glory, vain glory, cover for the truth that many know but cannot speak.

      • “We have discussed your very well structured and highly credible narrative re. the debacle that was the war in Iraq and its aftermath.”

        We have? Memory does not serve me well on this.

        I do intend to see the film, just to have a better understanding of the pros and cons regarding it. There is a great Frontline documentary entitled “Losing Iraq,” that really gives a comprehensive look at just why the “invasion and disarmament,” turned into a full fledged war. I realize that Eastwood’s film is Hollywood feature, and not a documentary.

        I did see “The Hurt Locker,” and thought it was a very good film about the Iraq war.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          I think many moons ago you and I discussed the rationale for the war as part of a wider discussion about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. I recall your perspective on “keeping the whole region in line.”

          I have seen “Losing Iraq.” Excellent. Also the Rachel Maddow special on selling the war. Damning.

  4. Beatlex says:

    Good post Murph,I have not seen the film,maybe I should.Is there such a thing as a “good war”? as WW2 has been called? Was it really? I would argue that it made the war in Iraq just a matter of time.
    Take a look at the facts,WW2 spawned the Iron Curtain,and subsequent Cold War.The USSR and America and their Allies divvied up THE WORLD.That ushered in a period of relative calm in the World. Then,as one talking head said at the time when the cold war was “won”That the world might view the cold war as the “good old days”
    I tend to agree with that.It shifted the balance of powers in ways that no one could have predicted.I am still of the opinion that GWBs epic blunder in Iraq was a by-product of the end of the cold war.I take from your blog that ALL war is hell and is a crime against Humanity that destroys people’s minds,as well as the physical toll

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      The key test. A good war is one where not fighting it would create a far worse world. I have no doubts that Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Imperial Japan victorious would have been far worse than what it took to fight and win the war.

      This criteria when applied to Iraq makes it clear that the war, that destabilized the entire region preparing the way for the Sunni uprising and the creation of ever expanding jihadist cells and the ISIS “caliphate”

      • Actually, Communist Russia was victorious. In a very big way. At the time, as I’m sure you know, they were our allies and their enemy was clearly Nazi Germany. The Russians paid an immense price in helping to defeat Hitler. Their taking Berlin alone was hugely costly.

        The Russians lost millions of people to Nazi Germany. We lost less than half a million to Hitler. The rest of our casualties were in the Pacific theater of war, against the Japanese.

        We certainly cannot count the Russians among those who lost in WWII. As a matter of fact, it was their victories that gave of cause for concern about their future plans.

        Russia even declared war on Japan, shortly before we dropped the two atomic weapons.

      • Beatlex says:

        I respect that Murph,but only the Soviet Union remained.Of course if Hitler and the Japanese were not vanquished,the war would have went on only until America decided to send out the Enola Gay.The Russians did the heavy lifting with Hitler.
        And in reality Stalin, was a bigger monster

  5. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Major kudos to Ad Lib for assisting me in publishing this story. I am in computer limbo right now and could not place images or video in the text. He provided his expertise and did the job. Thanks.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories