After watching the movie “American Sniper,” I called a friend named Garett Reppenhagen who was an American sniper in Iraq. He deployed with a cavalry scout unit from 2004 to 2005 and was stationed near FOB Warhorse. I asked him if he thought this movie really mattered. “Every portrayal of a historical event should be historically accurate,” he explained. ”A movie like this is a cultural symbol that influences the way people remember history and feel about war.”
Garett and I met through our antiwar and veteran support work, which he’s been involved with for almost a decade. He served in Iraq. I served in Afghanistan. But both of us know how powerful mass media and mass culture are. They shaped how we thought of the wars when we joined, so we felt it was important to tell our stories when we came home and spoke out.
I commend Chris Kyle for telling his story in his book “American Sniper.” The scariest thing I did while in the military was come home and tell my story to the public — the good, the bad and the ugly. I feel that veterans owe it to society to tell their stories, and civilians owe it to veterans to actively listen. Dr. Ed Tick, a psychotherapist who has specialized in veteran care for four decades, explains, “In all traditional and classical societies, returned warriors served many important psychosocial functions. They were keepers of dark wisdom for their cultures, witnesses to war’s horrors from personal experience who protected and discouraged, rather than encouraged, its outbreak again.”
Chris Kyle didn’t view Iraq like me and Garett, but neither of us have attacked him for it. He’s not the problem. We don’t care about the lies that Chris Kyle may or may not have told. They don’t matter. We care about the lies that Chris Kyle believed. The lie that Iraq was culpable for September 11. The lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The lie that people do evil things because they are evil.
The film “American Sniper” is also rife with lies. This was not Chris Kyle’s story. And Bradley Cooper was not Chris Kyle. It was Jason Hall’s story, a one-time actor in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and screenwriter for “American Sniper,” who called his film a “character study.” Don’t believe him. His movie is as fictional as Buffy Summers.
In the movie’s first scene, Cooper faces a moral dilemma that never happened in real life. Cooper suspects a boy is preparing to send an improvised explosive device, or IED, toward a convoy of approaching Marines on the streets of Fallujah. Either he kills a child or the child kills Marines. A soldier next to Cooper warns, “They’ll send your ass to Leavenworth if you’re wrong.” In writing this line, Hall implies that killing civilians is a war crime and U.S. military members are sent to prison for it. If U.S. soldiers, including Kyle, don’t seem to be getting punished for killing civilians, then they must not be killing civilians.
Garett and I agreed that even if that boy was a civilian, nothing would have happened to Cooper for shooting him. Both of us were trained to take detailed notes with the understanding that if something went wrong, it would be corrected in the report. Americans were responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths and almost none were held accountable.
During one incident in Iraq, Garett was involved in a firefight that left six to seven civilians dead. He received his orders from an intelligence officer who got his intelligence wrong. He led Garett and a small convoy to an Iraqi deputy governor’s compound, which was supposedly under attack. As the convoy approached, the soldiers spotted a cluster of trucks with armed Iraqis. The armed Iraqis saw the American convoy inching closer, but they didn’t fire. It seemed obvious to Garett that these Iraqis were not who the intelligence officer was looking for. Then the officer screamed, “Fire!” Confused, no one in the convoy pulled their triggers. “I said fire goddamn it!” Someone fired, and all hell broke loose. In the ensuing chaos, one of the Iraqi trucks struck a civilian seeking cover on the sidewalk. As it turned out, those armed Iraqis were the deputy governor’s own security detail. The officer didn’t go to Leavenworth.
In Hall and Cooper’s Fallujah, it’s as if the Americans just found a city that was already laid to waste. The movie leaves out America’s bombardment of Fallujah. An officer explains that the city has been evacuated, so any military-aged male remaining must be an insurgent. Conveniently, every Iraqi that Cooper kills happens to be carrying a rifle or burying an IED, even though the real Chris Kyle wrote that he was told to shoot any military-aged male. Obviously, every non-insurgent did not evacuate Fallujah.
“Many Iraqis didn’t have cars or other transportation,” Garett explained. “To get to the nearest town, you’d have to walk across very hot desert, and you wouldn’t be able to carry much. So a lot of residents just decided to stay indoors and wait it out. It’d be like telling people in San Antonio that they have to walk to El Paso; then they come back home and their city is bombed and contaminated with depleted uranium.”
So what brought Bradley Cooper’s character to Iraq? Early in the film, Hall sets the stage for the moral theme of the movie. When Cooper was a child he sat at a kitchen table with his father, who explained that there are only three types of people in the world: sheep who believe “evil doesn’t exist,” wolves who prey on the sheep, and sheepdogs who are “blessed with aggression” and protect the sheep. In this world, when Cooper watches the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings on television, there is only one explanation: just evil wolves being evil. So he joins the military. When Cooper watches September 11 on television, there is one explanation: just evil wolves being evil. So he goes to war with them.
Amazingly, Hall and Cooper’s war seems to have absolutely nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It’s about al-Qaida, which in real life followed the United States into Iraq after we invaded. Cooper’s war also seems to have nothing to do with helping Iraqis, only killing them. Except for the military’s interpreters, every Iraqi in the movie — including the women and children — are either evil, butchering insurgents or collaborators. The sense is that there isn’t a single innocent Iraqi in the war. They’re all “savages.”
Finally, it seems that a voice of criticism will be heard through the character of Marc Lee. When Lee voices his skepticism, Cooper asks, “Do you want them to attack San Diego or New York?” Cooper somehow wins with that absurd question. Later in the film, Navy SEAL Ryan Job is shot in the face. Distraught, Cooper decides he should lead a group of SEALs back out to avenge Job’s death, which is portrayed as the heroic thing to do. While Lee and Cooper are clearing a building, an Iraqi sniper shoots Lee in the head. The audience is then at Lee’s funeral, where his mother is reading the last letter that Lee sent home expressing criticism of the war. On the road home, Cooper’s wife asks him what he thought about the letter. “That letter killed Marc,” Cooper responds. “He let go, and he paid the price for it.” What makes Cooper a hero, according to the film, is that he’s a sheepdog. In Jason Hall’s world, Lee stops being a sheepdog when he questions his actions in Iraq. He becomes a sheep, “and he paid the price for it” with a bullet from a wolf.
Hall claims his film is a character study, yet he shamelessly butchered Marc Lee’s real story (and part of Kyle’s) to promote his moral fantasy world and deny legitimacy to veterans critical of the war. Here’s the truth: On the day that the real Ryan Job was shot, the real Marc Lee died after stepping into the line of fire twice to save Job’s life, which apparently was either not “sheepdog” enough to portray accurately in the movie or would have taken the focus off of Cooper’s reckless heroics. You can’t have people believe that critical soldiers are actually not sheep, can you? And as it turns out, Kyle never said those things about Lee’s letter and never blamed Lee for his own death for being skeptical of the war. (Here is Marc Lee’s actual last letter home in full.)
Chris Kyle was like so many soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believed in doing the right thing and was willing to give his life for it. That trait that drives many veterans is a truly special one I wish we all had. Was Kyle wrong that the Iraq War had anything to do with September 11, protecting Americans, seizing weapons of mass destruction, or liberating Iraqis? Without a doubt. But that’s what he was told and he genuinely believed it — an important insight into how good people are driven to work for bad causes. Was Kyle wrong for calling Iraqis “savages”? Of course. In one interview, he admits that Iraqis probably view him as a “savage,” but that in war he needed to dehumanize people to kill them — another important insight into how humans tolerate killing, which was left out of the movie.
So enough about Chris Kyle. Let’s talk about Cooper and Hall, and the culture industry that recycles propagandistic fiction under the guise of a “true story.” And let’s focus our anger and our organizing against the authorities and the institutions that craft the lies that the Chris Kyles of the world believe, that have created a trail of blowback leading from dumb war to dumb war, and that have sent 2.5 million veterans to fight a “war on terror” that persists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Pakistan. Critics and nonviolent organizers can be sheepdogs too.
I agree completely with everything in this article. I really appreciate the mention of depleted uranium as that is what killed my son. I have been writing letters to legislators for 4 years in hopes that someone will sponsor a bill dealing with DU. Agent Orange all over again.
I am an attorney that represents many veterans in disability compensation cases. Agent Orange is a huge problem, so I can only imagine what depleted uranium and other toxic substances we are using now will do to this generation of veterans. I am so sorry for your loss and hope that you find legislators willing to support your proposal.
I wonder about this myself, especially because I know at least two men who were in Iraq who are having autoimmune symptoms now: reduced blood flow to the extremities, lesions, etc.
Of course, since the symptoms didn’t start while we were in service the VA wants nothing to do with that.
Brock:
Thank you for this excellent piece. I will not reward the makers by paying to see this movie, so reviews such as yours and others have given me a useable knowledge of it. The approbations directed at Cooper and Hall also apply to Eastwood for being such a tool.
How is it that ISIS is around beheading, looting, killing burning and invading all of the Middle East including Iraq? I guess America is responsible for ISIS?
Yes, they are. Their ill-conceived invasion and complete failure at the “nation-building” left a government dominated by vengeance-minded Shi’ite legislators from the south and a semi-autonomous Kurdistan in the oil-rich north-east. Sunnis have been effectively shut-out politically and economically, making the central tribal areas a fertile ground just wait for a group like DAESH to take control. Thank you for your astuteness, which seem to be a rarity amongst your average countrymen.
Why post a comment by a “veteran” who has not seen combat? And who is embarrassed by what he did while he was in uniform. Those of us who have been in combat know the importance of snipers, though this author might not.
Also for the civilians who know nothing of this issue. All infantry “snipe”. We do it from 10-500 yards. Professional snipers do it at longer distances after their training and with special gear. There is nothing unique about them, just part of the military on the ground. Instead of whining about snipers who save lives why doesn’t this bonehead talk about the Jordan pilot who was burned alive. Maybe then he will see the need for snipers.
Folks who hate this country hate those who defend and protect it. We all know that.
Larry, I don’t see anything in this article where he is questioning the utility of snipers on a battlefield, nor where he is “whining about snipers who save lives.” Can you say more as to what part of the essay you are talking about? I’ve seen less thoughtful criticisms of the movie that your comment could apply to, but it doesn’t make sense to me in the context of this piece.
Larry, Thanks for your service. I hope that you and your fellow soldiers are all home and welcomed by many family and friends who missed you while you were fighting on our behalf. I am not a veteran, but I can only say that the anger many of us average Americans feel about the media and inaccurate portrayals in films like ‘American Sniper’ are not directed at active service troops or veterans.
I agree with you though if you are saying that the film didn’t do justice to what combat troops endure. From my own perspective, I am enraged by the lies and costs of almost every war we have been involved in. Our government and the mass media sell complete garbage masked as intelligence to Congress and the American public.
Further I don’t read anything here in the story as being disrespectful of the average military soldier or sailor or the need for skilled gunmen in combat. What I read in this story is a need for a broader discussion that goes beyond blind patriotism and takes our patriotism much farther. I think this story asks some tough questions that need to be answered.
*** Spoiler alert… =P
I agree with most of what is written here. But do people still believe Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
The munitions that were found were so old that they could not be used in any meaningful weaponized way, the shells were literally falling apart from rust and corrosion. The key term is “active weapons program”; the US government said Iraq had one, this proved to be false.
From your nytimes article: “… American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs”
First, the reported munitions on their face corroborate Saddam was in violation of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for disarmament mandated by UNSCR 687 (1991). There were no exceptions allowing Iraq to possess proscribed weapons no matter their state or age or production history.
UNSCR 687 (1991) mandated:
“(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above …
…
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;”
Second, an “active weapons program” was in fact found by the Iraq Survey Group: “Saddam had direct command of the Iraqi intelligence services [IIS] and the armed forces, including direct authority over plans and operations of both. … The IIS ran a large covert procurement program, undeclared chemical laboratories, and supported denial and deception operations.” (Duelfer Report)
The IIS was Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists and carried out Saddam’s black ops.
Click on my user-name for explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Great article, it crystallized everything I found so disturbing about Sniper as veet, but couldn’t express.
A brilliant, thoughtful, fact-based essay.
Be prepared to be attacked by the uber-patriots of the far-right!
Actually, the Bush administration didn’t blame Saddam for the 9/11 attacks. Rather, the 9/11 attacks highlighted the threat of Saddam’s ongoing noncompliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) of the disarmament and terrorism mandates of UNSC Resolution 687. UNSCR 687 set the operative definition of proscribed WMD for Iraq.
By law and policy, the casus belli was Iraq’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, not the pre-war intelligence estimates. As such, the principal trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC Cluster Document finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” that confirmed Iraq remained noncompliant with UNSCR 687. In the post-war investigation, the Iraq Survey Group corroborated that Iraq was in violation of UNSCR 687.
To set the record straight, an explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html .
To set the record straight, Halliburton has made over $35 billion from Iraq. Remember Halliburton? The company where VP Cheney had been a former CEO? Shouldn’t Halliburton and other war profiteers be paying for much of our veterans health care?
Out comes a film about American bravery and courage and everyone is either waving flags, or like Eric here throwing around legal speak, or the author criticizing the inaccurate film portrayal of war, all while the smartest guys in the room are walking away with our money.
In case you didn’t realize it, we’re all suckers.
Don’t you see how those claims that Iraq was non-compliant with dismantling its old programs is still a ridiculous reason to go to war? By that logic, we could be attacked if we ever failed to live up to our agreements for nuclear disarmament. Considering our history, other countries would be equally justified in claiming that we are a threat to other sovereign nations.
Also, that is NOT what Cheney and Bush were selling to the American people. They were talking about active WMD programs that could be used against the American people. If they had tried to argue that it was about decades old weapons that they hadn’t disposed of yet, no one would have supported the war.
A few things wrong with this article. Mind you I’m an army engineer vet of seven years and two deployments to Afghanistan. One thing is the Leavenworth comment. Yes it was a law not to kill unarmed civilians but not really enforced at the beginning of the war. So if he was hesitant it was because of moral issues. Not because of fear of going to prison. Two is I guess it never mentioned the part of how he helped his fellow veterans which was basically the whole point of the movie. The rest of the movie was meant, whether true or not, to represent many service members who have suffered from the effects of war. Chris kyles book was a great story to use for a movie that was BASED on a true story. We all know movies aren’t 100% accurate, but it used his story to show the situation of many veterans and the sacrifices they’ve made. In summary this movie wasn’t meant to glorify war or to skew a guys story who saved hundreds of Americans lives to fit the producer/writer/ directors personal agenda. It was used to give a message of the effects of war on American service members using one mans story.
I am a veteran of the Vietnam war! I was not for the invasion of Iraq. I have been against war any war sense being educated in battle. It was good to read your comments and that there are veterans against the Iraq war! I have not seen the film I don’t like war movies! I don’t have to see it I lived it! I have been worried for sometime about how the way the media portrays war and makes everyone a hero! We did our job but we are not heroes and war is not A place of glory! We need to call what it is so we only do it as a the last resort in defense of our country! Thank you for your comments the truth needs to be told.
Try “Best Years of Our Lives”.
For me, the pivotal part of the movie was the part where Kyle’s father taught about the 3 kinds of people. His father got that story wrong because the sheep are not the only ones who deny evil. The sheepdogs deny it too. Only they deny the evil that is in themselves. That is why they do what they do.
There is one more lie to expose, however. That lie is the one that says the father’s view that there are 3 kinds of people is Christian. The Christian view of what kinds of people exist is told in parables such as the parable of the two men praying and the parable of the prodigal son. It is also told by the apostles such as when Paul talks about how all people are sinners.
Brock, this is an interesting piece. I am a radio talk show producer and would love to hear you interviewed by Jesse Lee Peterson about your philosophy laid out here. Our show looks for honest, frank dialogue and moral clarity, which it looks like you’re after as well. If you are interested, email me james@jesseleepeterson.com … we would of course include mention and links to WagingNonviolence.org and your article.
Once I read the below paragraph I stopped reading it. Black water members have been prosecuted in the united states. Recently a marine jailed an officer Clint Lorance wfor having two afghans killed who were riding a motorcycle matching the description of a previous report of taliban laying ieds. You can’t just “change” a report and get away.
‘A soldier next to Cooper warns, “They’ll send your ass to Leavenworth if you’re wrong.” In writing this line, Hall implies that killing civilians is a war crime and U.S. military members are sent to prison for it. If U.S. soldiers, including Kyle, don’t seem to be getting punished for killing civilians, then they must not be killing civilians. Garett and I agreed that even if that boy was a civilian, nothing would have happened to Cooper for shooting him. Both of us were trained to take detailed notes with the understanding that if something went wrong, it would be corrected in the report. Americans were responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths and almost none were held accountable.”
The fact here is that, this world has seen many wars, particularly the 1st and 2nd world war, in which many millions died, suffered and injured, still no real solution for peace is found. World media seems to be fantasized by all these news of terrors, wars and bloodshed. World media seems to be a good source for terrorist to spread the news of terror, media people risk their lives to get the news of terror but media seems to be dump founded on the news of non-violent acts. I think this is totally wrong by not showing two sides of action, violent and non-violent acts, by showing the both sides of action, media can make a difference to make people understand the true values of non-violent acts. It is sad to find civilized people fantasized by the news of terror and it is very very sad that majority in this world still looks for external enemy, knowing not that real enemy is resides within our own delusion: Anger, Hatred and Vengeance!