"I Served in Iraq, and American Sniper Gets It ..." Topic

…Right. But It's Still Not the War Film We Need.

"I get what American Sniper is trying to do. I really do. Clint Eastwood's film is attempting to convey the grit, the determination, the pure endurance of seeing a belief through to its end. I served alongside a few guys like Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle in Iraq, guys whom I considered true believers — soldiers who operated in a world that was cut-and-dried, one filled with terrorists and violent extremists and foreign fighters and jihadists armed with RPGs, 9/11 as Exhibit A for why the trigger needed to be pulled. I've kicked in doors and taken part in the hunt for some of those same enemies. I was there, and I remember the signature of an Iraqi sniper working in our sector as he adjusted his sight picture — wounding one soldier at a time until he started killing and continued on killing after I'd completed my deployment and headed home. I've run for cover when the mortars came down, and I know, deep in my body, deeper than language, what it's like to be afraid for my life, and yet I did my best to remain professional and true to the guys to my left and right as we saw the moment through to its conclusion.

I remember seeing key chains displayed at a vendor's booth in a market north of Baghdad — Osama bin Laden's photograph on one side, smiling, the Twin Towers burning on the reverse side. It ed me off, holding it in my hands, knowing that merchants only stock what sells. The mathematics of certain moments sometimes have a crystallizing quality to them. When one of the children we often joked with threw a grenade into the vacant building we used as an observation post, a building we'd just handed off to the Second Platoon, it was a hard lesson in the reality of war, one that steeled us away from placing any amount of trust in a single soul during our year in-country. There's a scene — scenes, actually — in American Sniper where Chris Kyle struggles with the decision to shoot a child. Those scenes dredged up memories of Mosul and Baghdad, where I once heard the words You are authorized to shoot children come crackling over the radio. I also remember watching soldiers in my own platoon lob plastic water bottles filled with their own urine at village children who would run to us as we drove by — thirsty children who motioned with their thumbs to their mouths in a gesture pleading for water. There is truth in American Sniper, whether you think the film is crass jingoism or a portrait of a hero…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I always thought Catch 22 felt more authentic to the military experience than anything else.

I don't think we ever will be able to understand war. It's too complex. Even veterans only manage to understand one aspect of war, that of their own experience. It doesn't mean the same for a woman that loses her children than for a soldier that has his legs blown by a roadside bomb; nor for a soldier that spent his tour of duty in the relative safety of a rear base than for a child forced to deal with the reality of growing up in a world of scarce food and constant violence.

What about the civilians in the West? We got glimpses of distorted information coming from the front lines; images without a context that allows us to give them meaning; words that are barely understandable. We provide our own meanings to the pieces of the story and construct a new narrative based upon our own prejudices, political leanings or just our vital experience of suffering or joy.

Cultural products like movies and books try to convey stories with structure, something that can make sense. The more rational the architecture, the more successful the movie will be. However, in the end those cultural products are not about the experience of war, but about how we strife to make sense of chaos. I think that the only artistic movement that ever got War as experience right were Dadaists: random words, random images, no structure, no rationality, just spur of the moment feelings.

By that standard, we can't understand anything at all Basileus. Everything is only viewed through subjective experience.
-Kle.

Don't we tend to evaluate the parts of a film -- or a book -- that deal with what we know? And then trust, or not, the rest of it, based on how it deals with what we already thought we understood?

My own military experience is 40 years ago, and included no combat. Even the training was focused on SE Asia and not the ME. But human nature hasn't changed, nor probably the nature of soldiers and the military, much.

Haven't see SNIPER yet, may go this weekend, but if it rings true for what I DO know, I'll accept that the rest of it probably is as well.

Doc – very well stated. I think the movies holds true to most that have spent time in the middle east and other places like that. I think some others have a different view of what it was/is like. For me, the movie (and book) overall holds true for what I know.

AS does a good job of depicting the Iraq experience through one man's eyes and is a microcosm of the Iraq War (aka second Persian Gulf War). A movie based on a controversial war such as this is polarizing. Those who believe it's simply "us versus them" will love the movie's black-and-white simplicity, while those who don't (like the author of this article) would rather see it in shades of gray.

There are people who knew Chris Kyle who claimed that he had no qualms about pulling the trigger whether the target is man, woman, or child. They say that when you have over 250 kills (160 of them 'confirmed'), you'd have to enjoy killing to a certain degree. I don't know if the movie sugarcoated his character, but as the author said to deny our humanity would mean that "we'd have to learn how to live in a world far, far more complicated and painful than the difficult, painful one we currently live in." To acknowledge that Iraqis are "human" would be admitting that we made a mistake in Iraq.

Go see this movie and decide for yourselves. Here's my personal review of the film: link

Like it 28mm Fanatik!

Amicalement
Armand

Everything is only viewed through subjective experience.

Very true …

, but if it rings true for what I DO know, I'll accept that the rest of it probably is as well.

Agreed

A movie based on a controversial war such as this is polarizing. Those who believe it's simply "us versus them" will love the movie's black-and-white simplicity, while those who don't (like the author of this article) would rather see it in shades of gray.

All war has shades of grey, it's unavoidable …

no qualms about pulling the trigger whether the target is man, woman, or child. They say that when you have over 250 kills (160 of them 'confirmed'), you'd have to enjoy killing to a certain degree.

Not necessarily … soldiers in combat, when the hits the fan, generally only see the myopic picture of the survival of his comrades and himself. Usually in that order. To fail to do your job, could mean the death of one of your comrades/friends, etc. All the high minded rethoric about seeing those who are trying to kill you and your comrades/friends as humans, etc., etc., usually goes by the wayside. In short order. Once a woman or child picks up a weapon to use it or give it to someone else to use has instantly reduced themselves to a target. And you as a soldier has to go into survival mode. It has nothing to do with liking killing. It has to do with getting you and your comrades back home. The big picture, the reasons, real or propagandized why you are there making life of death choices shouldn't matter at that time.

To acknowledge that Iraqis are "human" would be admitting that we made a mistake in Iraq.

We could replace Iraqi with German, Japanese, North Korean, Chinese, Viet Cong, NVA, Somali, etc., etc., yes ? Also the author of the article said something about Iraqi children that survived to adulthood. Could making movies about what happened during the wars there. But clearly it would be from their standpoint, not a US Sniper, or soldier etc. … Their view would just as polarized as Kyle's, the article's author, or anybody else who served there of in any other combat zone. It seems almost every generation in the US has an awaking by those who have gone to war. Many of their recollections are the same in many ways. But in the jungle, instead of the desert, or vise versa. The plains and streets of Europe or the jungles of islands in the Pacific, etc., etc., etc., etc. … I watched "The Hunger Games" on TV the other night more by accident. Than interest. It seemed, save for a few parts, it could have been the story of young men and women who went to war. There really was very little new there when you got beyond the top layer of skin. Band of Brothers, Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead, etc. ,etc., etc., on the individual level many times it's generally the same … So what is the author of the article, a veteran, telling us about what many know … War is horrible, innocents die, men women and children die, everybody dies. It's war and again we all know war is horrible. Most/many that were there didn't like it …

Not necessarily … soldiers in combat, when the hits the fan, generally only see the myopic picture of the survival of his comrades and himself. Usually in that order. To fail to do your job, could mean the death of one of your comrades/friends, etc. All the high minded rethoric about seeing those who are trying to kill you and your comrades/friends as humans, etc., etc., usually goes by the wayside.

That's true in many cases, but in his autobiography Kyle refers to everyone he fought as "savage, despicable evil." He also was quoted as saying:

"I only wish I had killed more" and "I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn't need me – I'd be back in a heartbeat. I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL."

In an appearance on Conan O'Brien he laughed about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn't shoot people with Korans even though he'd like to.

This sounds like a classic case of a soldier who's drunk on war (addicted to battle) and trigger-happy. He sees what he did as a black-and-white crusade, not an ambiguous, shades-of-grey conflict the justification for which is questionable at best.

Putting on a uniform and being sent to war does not make you a hero.

Dying fighting does not make you a hero.

Being dead does not make you a hero.

The Established view is somewhat different, for obvious reasons.

As with all walks of life, in the military there are good guys, ordinary guys and psychopaths and everything in between. We are all human.

The only guy who knew how he felt about killing is him.

Doing your job and remaining professional, sane and alive in a War zone is a tall enough order and people end up approaching it in some very different ways. Coming out of it unscathed mentally and emotionally is often more down to luck than judgement. Most guys try to distance themselves from some of the realities, some achieve it and others do not.

I haven't seen this film, but my money is on it having a little too much jingoistic sauce for my tastes. I haven't seen too many serious War films that do not.

I accept that war exists in our society (horrible as it is), and I want my culture to win wars, and to accomplish that, I want the soldiers of my culture to aggressively fight, kill if they have to, and win.

But I would rather prefer that they didn't brag about killing when they returned to the U.S., or be so insecure that they have to lie about beating up Jesse Ventura, or brag about killing 30 looters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

And this is the kind of jerk that they glamorize by making a movie about? So many other much more capable and modest heroes who would be much better role models.

I live in a country where we have a school shooting every couple of weeks. I will probably never read the book or see the movie.

I must admit that the macho aura surrounding US snipers, with their published kill tallies etc worries me.

Her ein the UK we apparently have exceptionally good and effective snipers – one holds the world record for the longest shot….

But no-one knows who he is, and none of them talk about their job on talk shows.

I think, frankly, that's a healthier way of doing things.

Seeming to make sniping a competitive sport isn't good for a variety of reasons.

refers to everyone he fought as "savage, despicable evil."

Most weren't Choir Boys … They were "the enemy".

This sounds like a classic case of a soldier who's drunk on war (addicted to battle) and trigger-happy. He sees what he did as a black-and-white crusade, not an ambiguous, shades-of-grey conflict the justification for which is questionable at best.

This is the type of guy I want covering my in combat. As long as it is lawful, I'll use any assets, etc. to get my troops and my back home. And one of the most effective ways to do that is killing the enemy. And that is one way to win a battle. Whether I have sniper support, call in CAS, FA or have my troops hose down an enemy target with SA and MG fire, etc., as long as I'm going my job, killing the enemy and accomplishing the mission. That is why my troops and I are there. And on a tactical level, again being at the pointy end of the spear requires me to lead my soldiers in killing and destroying enemy personal and equipment. What are we not getting here as wargamers and in some cases veterans ?

Doing your job and remaining professional, sane and alive in a War zone is a tall enough order and people end up approaching it in some very different ways. Coming out of it unscathed mentally and emotionally is often more down to luck than judgement. Most guys try to distance themselves from some of the realities, some achieve it and others do not.

That is pretty much true … and if I liked killing the enemy, well at the time that may be a plus. And once it's all over and if you get home, we'll try to dea with it at the VA, etc. … Most guys are just glad to get back alive and know they did their duty.

to win wars, and to accomplish that, I want the soldiers of my culture to aggressively fight, kill if they have to, and win.

Right on !

A friend who served in Iraq said that the movie got bits of the experience right but that Eastwood pretty much ignored the book.

In the book Kyle, as others have noted, reveled in killing. In the movie he's portrayed as reluctant and remorseful, two sentiments completely missing from the book.

As so often happens with Hollywood, they turned a complex and difficult story into an overly simplified comic book. That's too bad since I believe that Kyle's true story is far more interesting, if also often uncomfortable to many civilians, including Clint Eastwood.

I wonder why my text size seems to change randomly…

I think it's your computer, VIS, because your posts all show up the same size on my machine.

Seeming to make sniping a competitive sport isn't good for a variety of reasons.

You really think that the snipers don't hold competitions among themselves? Kill count, longest shot, most difficult shot, etc.

Though I will admit that your sniper seems to hold both the longest shot and the most difficult shot titles that I'm aware of.

Yeah,now it's showing up normal size…weird.

Anywho, as a minor point of clarification, I didn't write the comment quoted by Lion. No biggie, but I actually agree with Lion. After all, in WWII fighter pilots and tank crews often tracked their kills with symbols on their vehicles.

As so often happens with Hollywood, they turned a complex and difficult story into an overly simplified comic book. That's too bad since I believe that Kyle's true story is far more interesting, if also often uncomfortable to many civilians, including Clint Eastwood.

Impossible, since this would mean telling the truth and trading in his laboriously cultivated hero image for that of a 'monster' who revels in killing indiscriminately. It would not go well with the public at all. They have to spin it to make him look good.

I should note that Clint Eastwood, though a republican, didn't support the 2003 Iraqi invasion which Bush and Cheney sold us on the false pretenses of WMD's: link

After all, in WWII fighter pilots and tank crews often tracked their kills with symbols on their vehicles.

Wars at the pointy end are genrally fought by young naturally testosterone infused males. Sometimes our more primative based instincts take over … Humans are still the best predators on the planet. Not all humans, but many, like those in the Infantry and Tank units, fighter pilots etc., etc. … Whether some of the more academically, liberal,, humanely motivated or at least they like to think so. Don't like to believe that as evolved as a society that we like to think we are. Or so they think … Warriors/soldiers like Kyle and many like him, "a 'monster' who revels in killing indiscriminately." … Are very much a necassary "evil" … Dare I say, I trained my soldiers to be predators, hunters, not victums like the media so often likes to portray. We were what the enemy should fear in the dark. Like Kyle … Not the other way around … Again, may I quote

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

Any one who thinks that "real" soldiers don't see the world of combat through a "black and white," "us vs. them" lens hasn't paid attention to history.

Take a look at the names troops have used to describe the enemy.

Gomer. Sammie. Skinny. Slope. Dink. Kraut. Nip. Slant. Hun.

These are just a few examples from US history. I'm sure that other country's soldiers used names in a similar vein. It's part of what I've heard explained as the dehumanizing process.

If you have to fight, and maybe kill, someone, it seems to being easier if you don't think of them as human.

Is this a good thing?

I have no idea, but it is something that happens.

Was Chris Kyle a psychopath? I have no idea, as I'm not a doctor who examined him. Was he very good at what he did? Seems so, and I expect that the men he provided cover for were glad he was on their side.

I think there's a world of difference between snipers keeping a personal score and bragging about it on the media.

As it happens, there is a slight psychological difference between pilots and tankers in as much as, apparently, the brain sees shooting up machies differently.

As for "black and white" visions of the world – suffice to say I've read enough veterans memoirs to know many are a lot more intelligent than that.

Any one who thinks that "real" soldiers don't see the world of combat through a "black and white," "us vs. them" lens hasn't paid attention to history.

Take a look at the names troops have used to describe the enemy.

Gomer. Sammie. Skinny. Slope. Dink. Kraut. Nip. Slant. Hun.

These are just a few examples from US history. I'm sure that other country's soldiers used names in a similar vein. It's part of what I've heard explained as the dehumanizing process.

If you have to fight, and maybe kill, someone, it seems to being easier if you don't think of them as human.

Is this a good thing?

I think that may generally be correct, … but not always. It's a bit of a broad bush comment. Not to disrespect that, it is a reasonalbe opinion, but not always valid. Shades of grey creep in sometimes … many times, in some cases … Is it a good thing ? When you are in a firefight, and want your men to survive … Yes … As I have said before, on a tactical level, killing the enemy [in large numbers] is usually the best way to survive and win battles. As we see, in recent conflicts the way geo-politics, etc., play a part. It's not always the end game to win the war. However, on a Sqd, Plt, Co. level it's the best way to survive and hope you kill enough and the enemy will go away … one way or another …

Was Chris Kyle a psychopath? I have no idea, as I'm not a doctor who examined him. Was he very good at what he did? Seems so, and I expect that the men he provided cover for were glad he was on their side.

IMO … no, he was just a soldier doing his job … And as I have said previously, I want him and those like him covering my … Being good at what you do as a soldier as long as it is legal, not a war crime, etc., does not make you crazy … it makes you effective …

I think there's a world of difference between snipers keeping a personal score and bragging about it on the media.

As it happens, there is a slight psychological difference between pilots and tankers in as much as, apparently, the brain sees shooting up machies differently.

As for "black and white" visions of the world – suffice to say I've read enough veterans memoirs to know many are a lot more intelligent than that.

Well, let's look at that … one take … we used to say in some cases, "No brag … just fact … ". After seeing interviews of Kyle and others like him, I don't get that they were bragging, etc. … They were just relaying their story of the events that happened. And to keep it basic, they generally killed a lot of people, doing their job. I think what may bother or upset some people's sensibilities, humanity, etc., etc. … From a Grunt's standpoint. Whether we kill, ambush etc. the enemy in combat, does not really matter if it by an MG, GL, etc. or a sniper. That what the soldiers' existance is all about in those moments. And not to step on anyone's toes as everyone is entitled to an opinion. But in the cases of a sniper or any soldier that kills in combat regardless of the number … Do you have the valid right to judge. Unless you were there or in a similar situation … But again, every one is allowed to an opinion. But is it really valid ? I don't know, but I think not … I may be wrong ? Why is the movie and book so popular ? I think many people, are tired of all the time, blood & treasure lost/wasted fighting an enemy. That has become more than just another "bad guy" … The public is probably tired of all horrendous things that has come about from figthing radicalized fanatical islam. Now was everyone that Kyle and others have killed in this conflict, a jihadi ? Probably not, they like many VC, were not hard core communists, or in this case islamists. But nationalists fighting the invaders … And as far as I'm concerned it's not about religion, but ideology … Religion or ideology is just semantics. No different then killing, if I may say, killing "Krauts" or "Nips" decades ago. Unfortunately as it may seem in the short or long run …

As for "black and white" visions of the world – suffice to say I've read enough veterans memoirs to know many are a lot more intelligent than that.

True, and I think the rates of PTSD and suicide among veterans speaks to that, too.

Legion – it was a 'fact' that Kyle felt necessary to turn into a book and media 'career' which sounds a bit like bragging at least to a British perspective.

But it could be that British snipers are forbidden to do the same, I don't know. Though if just measures are in force I'd imagine Bravo Two Zero would never have been written…

That a war film is popular isn't surprising – it's just a popular genre.

Possibly – just possibly – a more interesting film might come from looking at the perspective of Iraqi snipers, though whether that's a subject any Western film-maker can cover is a moot point.

But the motivations and complexities of the Iraqi side are somewhat less clear cut and hence more interesting.

Legion – it was a 'fact' that Kyle felt necessary to turn into a book and media 'career' which sounds a bit like bragging at least to a British perspective.

It's may be more a cultural point of view thing … Yank vs. Limey … no harm, no foul …

That a war film is popular isn't surprising – it's just a popular genre.

And Hollywood knows it … … it's what they do …

Possibly – just possibly – a more interesting film might come from looking at the perspective of Iraqi snipers, though whether that's a subject any Western film-maker can cover is a moot point.

But the motivations and complexities of the Iraqi side are somewhat less clear cut and hence more interesting.

Some day if Deash is defeated and Iraq is still Iraq … some one may make such a film …

Kyle wasn't fighting Deash though… it would certainly be interesting to get the opposing perspective.

No, but regardless, Deash is operating widely thru out Western Iraq at this time. However, Kyle fought the precursor to Deash. Al-Bagdadi and many of the leadership of Deash were vets of GWII. He was even an EPW, released from US custody in Iraq. When IIRC, the Iraq government gave some sort of release program after the war had looked like it was winding down. I'm sure Kyle shot at the various Shia' militias, Sunni insurgent factions, AQ, etc., etc. … And as I have said many times before, it does not really matter who is shooting at you. At that time, their politics, religion, tribe, ethnicity, race, etc., really has little meaning when under fire …

Daesh's success was an indirect result of the ill-advised 2003 Iraqi invasion by the Bush Administration. After Saddam Hussein was removed from power and Bush made his premature victory declaration on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, he did not anticipate that the war was only just beginning since the destabilized Iraq was now ripe for insurgents and extremists to thrive. It was only after Bush's so-called "victory" in Iraq that extremists flocked from other countries and declared open season on US servicemen as the war transitioned to an insurgency. Compounding this was the US insistence on dismantling the professional Iraqi army and raising a new one from scratch. We all knew how that turned out.

If Hussein is still in power today, there is no way ISIS would be running rampant right now. The Iraqi army and Republican Guard would crush them.

"You reap what you sow" comes to mind.

I don't blame Chris Kyle for not questioning the war like his brother Jeff (a Marine) or some of his fellow SEALs did in the movie. He did his job with cold precision and professionalism, even if he enjoyed it a bit too much by all accounts. That's why I didn't let my 'politics' prevent me from giving the movie high marks or recommending it.

As I have said previously, in hindsight, the US made 2 strategic errors in the past few decades. 1) Supporting the Muj against the USSR. We should have just let them fight it out among themselves. 2) GWII, if Saddam or his sons were still in power, then yes … as 28mm noted

there is no way ISIS would be running rampant right now

…

I don't blame Kyle for not questioning the war like his brother Jeff (a Marine) or some of his fellow SEALs did in the movie. He did his job with cold precision and professionalism, even if he enjoyed it a bit too much by all accounts.

I like guys like that covering my … it does not matter to me if he likes it or not, or it may seem so to some. He saved US lives … that works for me …

I think there's a world of difference between snipers keeping a personal score and bragging about it on the media.

The UK also has the really draconian Official Secrets Act, not to mention a cultural thing where admitting you actually did something is considered to be bragging.

I suspect that the reason Kyle was "known" was that he wrote a book and the publisher required some variety of biography or bona-fides. I know several soldiers who started writing as part of their psychological therapy to get their heads screwed back on straight enough to function in civilian life.

Also, don't people in the UK who leave the service remain on half-pay (so don't necessarily need to write books or whatever to put food on the table)?

I believe the half-pay system went the way of the dodo about a century ago.

Er no, half-pay went out well over a century ago.. with Cardwells reforms I think!

they have to spend time i nthe reserves and, liek the TA, get paid for whatever time they spend in uniform training.

If they were on half-pay I doubt we'd see so many veterans homeless…

Also, don't people in the UK who leave the service remain on half-pay (so don't necessarily need to write books or whatever to put food on the table)?
--------------
No – otherwise ex-servicemen would not (sadly) constitute one of the biggest groups of people on the streets and in our prisons – as inmates (to the extent re latter that HMPS now forming special support groups for them)

A key point in this discussion is that Kyle the real person was very different than how he was portrayed in the movie.

Heck, I admire the character as he's shown in the movie. But that's a completely fictitious character.

Kyle the real man was a blowhard and braggart, whom I don't respect at all.

From what I saw, again, I'll have to disagree … but as usual we may all have different opinions on this and other topics …

"there is no way ISIS would be running rampant right now "

The coalition forces haven't managed. And you expect the much-smaller and less equipped old Iraqi forces to do it?

The Iraqi Army even with "Ghost Soldiers", out numbered Deash and still do, at least on paper. The "Less equipped old Iarqi forces", that had a lot of training, and billions in military aid, from the US and others … No … the Iraqis lost this on their own …

d you expect the much-smaller and less equipped old Iraqi forces to do it?

They had willingness and had some far more effective and loyal units. The sectarianism wasn't as engrained. Also the pre-1991 army was huge with a massive amount of combat firepower. The post -1991 Iraqi army still managed to put down a marsh Arab rebellion but was crippled in the North by US No Fly Zones.

Iraq and Syria's new failed state status are the direct result of American interventionism.

Kyle the real man was a blowhard and braggart, whom I don't respect at all.

Most soliders and sailors I've met have been like that. And if you believe their stories apparently every single Australian soldier is ex-SAS. I don't think we have normal military in Australia – it's all SAS.

----

As for the movie, don't care about the propaganda or what kind of guy Chris Kyle was or whatever: This was one excellent war movie, in fact one of my favourites

And it was infinitely better than that awful that is Fury.

Odd. None of the squaddies I know talk about their service at all…

As for militias…the Badr mob look competant and have been doing some damage.

I'm always amazed how people don't like to talk about their war experiences.

I'm always willing to talk about mine – I've seen my neighbour wounded by shrapnel (ironically she was a Serb), been in a house as it got riddled with shrapnel arfter the neighbouring one got a direct hit (yay for conrete walls), been shot at by a sniper (I was 11 at the time and my brother was 7 and we were with our mum!), seen a JNA jet do a rocket run on a nearby army base (ammo dump exploded for several hours after that and streets were littered in bits of weapons), lived in bomb shelters, running down a street to a bomb shelter whilst the night sky was being lit up by explosions etc etc. I admit to breaking down in the shelter – I remember crying and wanting to kill all the Serbs even though I was a kid.

The toilets in one of the shelters (plastic bins) were so rank we risked getting shot by going to the school above to use the toilets.

I remember the first time a firefight erupted in my neighbourhood – I sat there reading comic books and my parents called out to me to get under the kitchen table!

I even remember meals I had – first time I ever had hot bread was in a war! And no electricity so lots of BBQs (cooked in a nook so out of LOS of snipers). And on the odd night when there was no shooting – it was so still – no cars and no lights (we lost power and water early on). I still love that stillness today.

I have no qualms with it and I volunteered for service with the Australian Army as an adult (depth perception kept me out).

I wouldn't go to war today though – too old and unfit and I have a family now. No way am I leaving them to die in some godforsaken country.

Here's another example of people talking about their war experiences – a bunch of Syrian heavy metal fans (some who are also milita members):

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0-JyWKMLI9M

They live in conditions even worse than US/UK troops – these are their homes being destroyed and family members being killed. They don't have bullet proof vests, fortified bases, PXs or air support (lest you count Syrian AF carpet bombing your home airsupport).

Iraq and Syria's new failed state status are the direct result of American interventionism.

I'd say yes to a point for Iraq. They pretty seemed to have dropped the ball after their liberation from Saddam. Syria, don't really know what US intervention occurred there. Short of not flying missions in the name of the anti-Assad forces. However, we all know how "muddied" the anti-Assad forces are …

Most soldiers and sailors I've met have been like that.

Odd. None of the squaddies I know talk about their service at all…

I'm always amazed how people don't like to talk about their war experiences.

I think it really depends on the individual …

I wouldn't go to war today though – too old and unfit … No way am I leaving … die in some godforsaken country.

If they have to recall me at my age and condition, etc. … we really are in trouble !

I think most people would agree that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, as it destabilized the country and created conditions in which Islamists thrived. After the invasion, Iran became Iraq's patron and the power shifted to the shiites. Decades of sectarianism are no longer held in check by the secularist Ba'ath Party. Remember that Iraq used to be three provinces under Ottoman rule.

Likewise, the NATO intervention in Libya was probably a mistake as well. But we didn't try very hard to oust Bashar al-Assad in Syria, due in part to Russian and Iranian opposition.

But we didn't try very hard to oust Bashar al-Assad in Syria, due in part to Russian and Iranian opposition.

We did enough to let Syria become completely destabilised.

"[blowhards and braggards] Most soliders and sailors I've met have been like that."

We have very different experiences, or live in very different cultures. The vast majority of soldiers I know, or served with, are not blowhards or braggarts. Which makes me respect people like Kyle all the less.

We did enough to let Syria become completely destabilised.

I doubt anything other than supporting Assad against the rebels would have changed the situation in Syria. The Syrian civil war was a bloody affair which destabilized Syria, not anything the US had done.

"This sounds like a classic case of a soldier who's drunk on war"

I'm not going to say the person who wrote this is an ignorant person but I will assert there is no such 'classic case'. There are decent enemy and savage enemy. There were very few noble opponents in Iraq. By noble I mean people who truly were fighting for a better world. (The opposition in Anbar were indeed very noble and they are a great counter-example.) The "savages" comment was in the context of talking about some really terrible people. In his case it was AQI types. My work covered seeing the work of the Shiite terrorist groups as well. In one case they were keeping a village under control by keeping the children captive and beheading them on occasion when they needed something the population wasn't willing to give them. In Muqdadiya they created an electrified bed where they'd slowly cook people they were either trying to get intel from or were punishing. There are thousands of other examples.

So if you think calling them savages is wrong I can't help you. I have to disagree with your opinion.