Guest post by Jared Ogden
When it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its aftermath and our lessons learned, my night vision is off and I’m not looking at any one terrain feature through my rifle optic. From those conflicts, I have my own personal experiences as a Navy SEAL veteran having been ‘down range’ in support of the Global War Against Terrorism from which to draw, but additionally, a plethora of other references and data points from those who have also ‘been there and done that.’ As a student of history, both my eyes and ears are wide open and I’m eager to learn so as to not repeat mistakes made in the past. Since 2001, several personal accounts of these conflicts have been documented through memoirs and books, many of which have been made into movies.
This morning after reading an editorial by a fellow veteran, Garett Reppenhagen, I was struck by several remarks he offered in reference to one such book turned movie and I am compelled to share my thoughts.
First, we have a difference of opinion surrounding the context of the movie “American Sniper.” I view this film as a story capturing the mental and emotional aspect felt by service members after years and years of deploying repeatedly. The movie showcases the toll it takes on the service member and the family; the acclimation process of injecting oneself into the family unit knowing that in a few months, war will be the waking reality and the family will be orphaned yet again. Mr. Reppenhagen states that “the movie depicts compounded action scenes with very little political and regional context. It was a conscious decision by Clint Eastwood, apparently, to leave out the cause of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.” Yes, you are correct, but I think you’ve missed the point. “American Sniper” isn’t about political and regional context. Two hours was not enough time for Eastwood to portray Chris Kyle’s experiences at home and in battle, let alone explain the geopolitics surrounding it. Furthermore and by definition, the conflict in Iraq is a Counter Insurgency or COIN if you’re unfamiliar with the term. Only those who subscribe to U.S. and Coalition presence in Iraq as an “occupation” are those who believe the insurgency’s propaganda machine. The war is over and the U.S. has transitioned custody to the Iraqis. What occupation are you referring to sir?
Let’s now take a look at the use of the word “savage.” Chris is not referring to peaceful Iraqis as being savage. Like the majority of Americans, the majority of Iraqis just want to live their lives in peace and provide for their families. But anyone who desires to intimidate the timid and meek, coerce them through threat, or otherwise project violence upon them as a means to influence thought or shift support from one alliance to another is a savage. I believe that Chris refers to savages not to the Iraqi people as a whole, but rather those evil people who were committing evil acts.
Mr. Reppenhagen stated that some moviegoers had bigoted responses due to the movie’s “nearsighted portrayal of Iraqis” causing “more people to fear Arabs and glorify violence against them.” However, the movie did not portray all Iraqis as savages. We were all deeply saddened at the fate of the poor child and his father who provided intelligence to the SEALs regarding the location of al-Zarqawi and his ilk. Should we pull the movie from theaters because some overlooked this and tweeted violent and aggressive responses to it? Certainly not.
I think Mr. Reppenhagen’s opinion of the movie is off-base and fails to grasp the true message in “American Sniper.” Regardless, Chris Kyle is a hero. He was murdered while providing service to those who served and is a role model. Clint Eastwood nailed this movie and if you think American Sniper is about war, you’re wrong. It’s about the toll war takes the operator and the stress combat deployments create on those we leave at home.
For further discussion regarding this and more, please follow @JaredWOgden.
