Heroes and Dunces
Bill Maher denigrated the American people as dunces who lack nuance. At least, that's his take on all the people who liked the film “American Sniper” me included. Talk about a lack of nuance! He takes a few of Chris Kyle's comments out of context and determines that he must have been a jerk, certainly not a hero.
Let's say that Kyle could be a jerk, maybe even a major jerk. Does that mean he couldn't also be a hero? What is Maher really saying, that “Real heroes” must be politically correct, or culturally tolerant of the enemy, including their use of civilian men, woman and children as suicide bombers? Who, by the way, were trying to kill Kyle and his fellow soldiers. But, apparently, that's only because those poor Iraqi snipers and death squads were defending themselves against Americans occupying their country. Saddam Hussein was obviously a well loved leader and honorable man, not a psychopath at all. And besides, who are we to call someone a psychopath? Maher, however, does exactly that when talking about Kyle. Why? Because he has all the nuance of a man who fell out of a tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Let's be clear about something, if Chris Kyle had served in WWII, no one would be calling him anything other than an American Hero, but he didn't. He served in an unpopular war. And, to acknowledge his actions in a positive light is to reaffirm the Iraq war and possibly even the Bush administration--and that will never do. That, however, is a different debate.
Unfortunately, it never seems to dawn on Maher that judging a man who served four tours of duty, protecting American lives by shooting enemy combatants, could reasonably be engaged in a heroic and noble cause, even if the war itself was morally questionable. If, at times, Chris Kyle could be a jerk, the two are hardly mutually exclusive. Do we really want angst ridden soldiers on the battlefield, questioning the morality of every situation they find themselves in? I don't think so. Winston Churchill, for instance, was known to be arrogant and abrasive. Few would reasonably argue, though, that he wasn't instrumental in saving England and probably all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazis. His character flaws, relatively speaking, were of little concern.
Maybe, it's that Kyle was a sniper? Should Kyle have engaged the Iraqis in hand to hand combat? Maybe, that would've been brave. Of course, that would have also been a remarkably inefficient way of protecting his fellow soldiers and inevitably led to far more American deaths, probably more Iraqi deaths, as well. Or, maybe, Bill Maher is simply another idiot talking about something he knows nothing about. The latter seems a whole lot more likely.
There is plenty of room to question America's role in various wars. That is the nature of democracy. But, Maher doesn't really do that. He stakes out familiar territory from the very comfortable position of a wealthy, privileged observer. One who's superior morality cost him nothing. For others, though, the cost is everything. Most Americans, moreover, most rational people, understand this and honor those who made the necessary sacrifice. And, that hardly makes them naive.
Mark Magula
Let's say that Kyle could be a jerk, maybe even a major jerk. Does that mean he couldn't also be a hero? What is Maher really saying, that “Real heroes” must be politically correct, or culturally tolerant of the enemy, including their use of civilian men, woman and children as suicide bombers? Who, by the way, were trying to kill Kyle and his fellow soldiers. But, apparently, that's only because those poor Iraqi snipers and death squads were defending themselves against Americans occupying their country. Saddam Hussein was obviously a well loved leader and honorable man, not a psychopath at all. And besides, who are we to call someone a psychopath? Maher, however, does exactly that when talking about Kyle. Why? Because he has all the nuance of a man who fell out of a tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Let's be clear about something, if Chris Kyle had served in WWII, no one would be calling him anything other than an American Hero, but he didn't. He served in an unpopular war. And, to acknowledge his actions in a positive light is to reaffirm the Iraq war and possibly even the Bush administration--and that will never do. That, however, is a different debate.
Unfortunately, it never seems to dawn on Maher that judging a man who served four tours of duty, protecting American lives by shooting enemy combatants, could reasonably be engaged in a heroic and noble cause, even if the war itself was morally questionable. If, at times, Chris Kyle could be a jerk, the two are hardly mutually exclusive. Do we really want angst ridden soldiers on the battlefield, questioning the morality of every situation they find themselves in? I don't think so. Winston Churchill, for instance, was known to be arrogant and abrasive. Few would reasonably argue, though, that he wasn't instrumental in saving England and probably all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazis. His character flaws, relatively speaking, were of little concern.
Maybe, it's that Kyle was a sniper? Should Kyle have engaged the Iraqis in hand to hand combat? Maybe, that would've been brave. Of course, that would have also been a remarkably inefficient way of protecting his fellow soldiers and inevitably led to far more American deaths, probably more Iraqi deaths, as well. Or, maybe, Bill Maher is simply another idiot talking about something he knows nothing about. The latter seems a whole lot more likely.
There is plenty of room to question America's role in various wars. That is the nature of democracy. But, Maher doesn't really do that. He stakes out familiar territory from the very comfortable position of a wealthy, privileged observer. One who's superior morality cost him nothing. For others, though, the cost is everything. Most Americans, moreover, most rational people, understand this and honor those who made the necessary sacrifice. And, that hardly makes them naive.
Mark Magula
