« Pow-wow in Riyadh | Main | A Somewhat Different Take on American Sniper »

26 January 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Robert Willman

There was zero direct evidence. I sat through all of it. There were no Blacks on the jury, nine of whom were white women. pl


Turmoil on the Left:




Lol go back to practicing sati or honor killings or whatever it is you do in South Asia when you're not gang raping Western tourists/aid workers.



I agree with a lot of what you say there. Anyone who has been around blacks (and no, the half caste mulatta who never met her dad who you met at horse camp is not a typical black) know that they're some of the most real talk types around when it,comes to race. Its why the spectacle of libs groveling for assumed blood libel is so funny on one hand - they dont respect that one bit.

As for the bit about Arabs being nervous, I disagree. The bodies generally ain't even cold after a terror attack before the lefty media starts ginning up worries about "backlashes" that never seem to occur. Personally, I've simply accepted that you've got a target on your back thanks to our leaders not giving a sh-t who comes into the country, and to be prepared accordingly.

Je suis counter terrorist.

joe brand

I agree that this is a pretty perceptive review, and it seems to me that the most appealing things about the movie -- to this culture, at this moment -- aren't just about war and shooting. It depicts married people being adults and balancing their obligations against competing obligations that cost them dearly. It shows a man who isn't a metrosexual or a slacker, trying to keep his word in complicated and painful ways.

In some ways, against the flood of Seth Rogen movies (man as eternal boy) and George Clooney or Johnny Depp movies (man as foppish playboy), it depicts a kind of manhood and a kind of adulthood that people want to admire. I don't entirely disagree with Col. Lang's assessment, but I think the movie answers a cultural hunger that's bigger than chickenhawkery. It's also about a man who struggles to become a good husband and an alert father again.

joe brand

"...shooting limbs, or shooting around as warning shots."

And presumably that worked well for you when you did it, right?

Old Gun Pilot

I couldn't agree with you more, Col. I have never viewed snipers as particularly heroic, although I'm sure many were. In the war that you and I and others on this committee fought those who I had the most respect were the infantry men-the basic riflemen. In the Marine Corps their MOS was 0311 and from my perch above I was in constant awe. Most were in or just out of their teens and the NCOs weren't much older but every day or night as the case might be they saddled up with 50 or more pounds of gear and set out through the rice patties and jungle looking for trouble which they usually found. Too many came back from patrol carried on a poncho liner. Many of those went back home with a flag draped over their casket. Although I was out there every day supporting them at the end of the mission I returned to a secure base with hot chow a luke warm shower and a rack with a mattress. Those guys are my heroes.

The Moar You Know

Got nothing but what my father told me. I was four when he flew the "Hanoi Taxi" 141 into Travis AFB, and that was pretty much the end of both my and his involvement with Vietnam.

His participation in Vietnam never caused him a single bit of grief from anyone "back home". I understand others had other experiences. But I never saw that, not once.

Laura Wilson

Makosog--I'm not sure I understand your reasoning on this?


And meaning what Tyler, was that a comment on my comment, or a scattershot of generalities upon people you find too peaceful?


Years ago I read the autobiography of Carlos Hathcock, the USMC sniper who the NVN had a 30,000 dollar reward had on his head.


He was matter-of-fact about his job but not a braggart, or from what I can tell, an embellisher, as Kyle is accused of being. Hathcock said, "He enjoyed hunting and shooting but not killing." On the other hand, Kyle said that he enjoyed himself in Iraq. It can be inferred that he liked killing but that is still putting words in his mouth. The difference in the attitudes between Kyle and Hathcock seems to me to be a generational one.

In high school we saw dead and wounded soldiers in the Vietnam War. We heard soldiers say, "I don't know what we are fighting for." Most of us civilians, even WWII veterans, wanted to bring our boys home. Today kids are exposed to the fake blood and carnage of video games and movies, but are shielded from the real carnage and blood of our wars. It's easy to glorify virtual reality and pretend the world is black and white. Many Americans believe we, the good people, can save the world by killing all the evil people, who we can tell by their headwear. Of course, some people need to be killed but as a society to many see that as the only option for settling our differences with other countries. Even to the absurd point of military confrontation with Iran or Russia. Too many Americans, and leaders, have a dangerous mindset, a hair trigger you might say.

Still, I was impressed with Carlos Hathcocks nerves and abilities. He spent three days inching forward through a meadow to kill a high level NVN intelligence officer, stayed still while he was almost trampled on while being searched for and inched his way out of the field. I just think, from what I've read about Kyle and Hathcock, that Hathcock had more class. And I'm also glad Kyle was good at his job.

I'll watch American Sniper and Paddington when they come out on Netflix.


Bobo, from what I have gathered, the reality of having participated in an actual cruel war is no cause to celebrate or keep score, or tell tales about afterwards. Obviously, judging from the fact that you could not finish the book and will not see the movie, you are one of those Understood. I myself have read many, many personal accounts of people who have participated in real war, and also put down those accounts which celebrated and glorified the killing business.


Okay. So the Scout/Sniper platoon over in the Stryker unit I served in was known as the Recon Platoon, and they were the heyboys for the BC in 4/23. They got all the cool guy gear, all the 'high speed' missions and training, and all the perks despite the lot of them mostly having around a year and a half of service. As a mortar, I was part of the company commander's heyboy platoon, and since we were the only company doing 24 hr patrols, we tended to get into more of the crap than usual.

I say this because I saw my fair share of these jokers due to the fact we were always wheeling around Mosul and these guys showed up a day late and a dollar short after the shooting was done with antics that wouldn't have been out of place on a JV football team.

So one night these guys are sitting in a building at full platoon strength waiting to ambush someone (our intel was garbage as far as I saw, BTW). Well here comes someone with a rifle. Here comes a FEW someones with a rifle. Oh dear, its the enemy! So one of these clowns opens up with the 240B machine gun and nearly lights up what turns out to be our Alpha Company.

The Recon schlubs immediately wake up and just start blasting the soldiers in the open with everything they've got. Machine guns, anti tank rockets, etc etc, all fired at this squad. As far as I know, they missed all their shots, which is kind of telling.

About this time two of the A Co. Strykers show up with heavy weapons (.50 cal M2s and Mk19 grenade launchers) and wreck the building that Recon platoon was hiding out in. They do not miss, with one guy joining the ranks of the amputated and others taking various shrapnel fire. About this time there's a "whoopsie" moment and the Recon guys get on the radio talking about blue on blue fire.

You'd think that someone would have finally woken up and realized that the Recon platoon was a bad idea, but nah that didn't happen. Instead we were treated to an awards ceremony where a bunch of those assholes were lauded with the Bronze Star with a Valor device and Purple Hearts for "fighting through an al Qaeda ambush". al Qaeda using US weaponry. Alpha Company mysteriously vanished off to Rawah and the swimming pool equipped FOB there to "provide security" where an IED a month was a huge deal.

If I sound annoyed, its because those assholes got laurels while a medic I know had to fight for his Purple Heart after catching fire from an IED. He should have got the Silver Star because he put himself out before tending to the rest of his squad who was unconscious, and returned fire at the insurgents who tried to police them up. Real shit, but because he wasn't doing PT with the SMG guess it didn't happen.

Shades of "The Major won the Croix de Guerre" and 'it don't mean nuttin'.


Nancy K, General Patton as portrayed spectacularly by George Scott, was a Shakespearean character, with all his shortcomings and passions. He was not black and white, but all shades of gray, as all people are who fight in real wars, on all sides. Tragedy of war, like in all human endeavors is universal, simplifying it to score keeping or reality TV reduces it to the level of porn as you mentioned it. Being for, or against war has nothing to do with it.

War movies as a genre is very important, I often wonder if there was a huge body of them before WWI, whether the slaughter of a whole European generation would have taken place.



Damn, you're on to me. I really gotta work on my writing skills.......



We are probably fortunate that Hollywood hasn't been able to figure out how to make a move about drones. Speaking of drones here's breaking news: jihadist # 1 gazilion (this time in Yemen) is killed by drone. Just a blip on the newsfeed of the ever connected #bringbackourgirls/Ukraine/Free Syria internet generation. Another day, another jihadi. Nice, clean and bloodless (no pictures, heroes, villains or responsibility for the voting public or their elected representatives.)

Meanwhile, at 3:00 am local time in D.C. drone crashes on White House lawn. Un-named government employee of unknown department comes forward. Really. 3:00 am, because that's when all law abiding residents of D.C. fly their drones over the White House grounds. Certainly it's not a dry run for AQinD.C; (nor a ploy to get some FAA regulations on drones for those pesky citizens who might want to actually use one.)

As to this movie they have a conveniently (for the movie industry) dead man they can then wrap a plot around.The liberals can conveniently flail the movie since they sure aren't willing to flail their own politicians (or vote them out of office) who voted for the Iraq war, the surge(s) or other assorted neocon projects (Ukraine, Syria). On the other side the couch commandos can conveniently flog some liberal ire by watching the movie. Just like America "sent Korea a message" by watching Seth Rogen's bigoted Kim Jong Il assassination comedy. Just another day in obligation free America. A sad day, too.

Ishmael Zechariah


Quite a few had to shoot sitting birds. Used to be that very few thought this glorious.

Ishmael Zechariah

ex-PFC Chuck

Off topic but . . . Pertinent to the next war?
Video clip apparently confirming the presence of an American in the action in Ukraine, presumably in the east. SOF? Contractor?
It's only 41 seconds long but pay special attention at 22 sec.


Do you think Sterling is guilty?



A comment on your comment and general cluelessness. "Shoot limbs". Have you eveer fired a gun at someone? Its hard enough to hit center mass for most people versus the trick shooting you're going on about.



I agree with the defense theory that the staff of the SSCI leaked to Risen after Sterling told them in 2003 of this failed op. In response the CIA mounted an effort employing CIA management and source Merlin to deflate Risen. The additional info that they gave Risen in that effort showed up in his book "State of War" in 2006. Much of the detail in that was unavailable to Sterling who had left in 2000. pl

Bill H

Forgettable? Excruciatingly bad, but I will always remember that even Ed Harris can make a bad movie.Other than that, yes, forgettable.


The liberals (or left wing)were the ones who was angered when "American Snipers" became a block buster in the movies. They could not understand the reason why.

Chris Kyle has been embraced by the conservatives and in my opinion, maybe they could not fathom why a movie that portrays a conservative backed character and directed by Clint Eastwood (a conservative director) would become a blockbuster
when, to their way of thinking, it should have sank.

"In just 10 days of wide release, director Clint Eastwood’s masterpiece has already grossed $200 million. Box Office Mojo now predicts “Sniper” will easily pass the $350 million mark and could possibly gross $400 million."


Here is a nice piece on why the American left hates "American Sniper."


Hopefully, this will clear whatever fogginess are on your head and others, too...


Rambo III has had less of a long term impact due to subsequent events. ("This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan")

Patrick Bahzad

Haven't seen the movie and haven't read the review through, but what I read did sound ackward and wrong. I never go and watch war movies, especially not Hollywood movies about the big Sandbox.
Only exceptions were "Hurtlocker", "Syriana" and "The Kingdom" (even though the last two were not exactly war movies).
Overall I think there's a morbid fascination particularly in the US for that kind of movies, providing people with the cheap thrill of experiencing "real action" from the safety of their movie theater, and the moral high ground of "doing one's duty" even if there might be something wrong with the war itself.
Coupled with some nicely balanced insights into a man's personal life, to enhance the feeling that this is actually the real deal.
What the movie shows is what America wants to see about those wars, not what actually happened or why.
From a technical point of view, there's certainly been some good work done here, to give a realistic view into what it may have looked like from a sniper's perspective, but the movie is just that ... having a look at a war through the telescopic sights of a sniper's rifle ... eyes on target but zero peripheral vision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad