Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
It depends -- and not (only) on the identity of who he killed, but on the greater question of how good do you want your soldiers to be?
The guy was trained to be a killing machine. Can you flinch and still be a good sniper? I'm not sure. Is it true that all the people he killed were "bad"? Maybe, but I doubt it -- and yet, I don't question that he believed that, and had to believe that, so as not to go completely insane. I really do have trouble with the message of "go fight our wars, but try to have second thoughts about it."
The other stuff -- hating Iraqis, etc. --- that stuff I can fault him for, if that is in fact what he said or felt. That's the stuff that creates Lieut. Calleys.
|
I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).
I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.
Threaded Mode