On the heels of the Oscar nominations and the various controversies that came out of those announcements, it wasn’t altogether surprising that a movie like American Sniper exited the fray a target of criticism. “Pro-war,” and “anti-Muslim,” or even nuanced critiques of Bradley Cooper’s “lack of range” in the lead role may well be justified comments on the film and its weaknesses, but to categorically call snipers “cowards” as Michael Moore did this week is ignorant at best; at worst it is what Jane Fonda referred to when she wised up after more than 42 years and apologized for perpetuating “the myth that being anti-war means being anti-soldier.” Fonda was photographed in 1972 on an enemy tank in North Vietnam and said only this week that she made a “huge mistake.”
The naïve and, frankly, moronic tweets by Moore are indeed anti-military, but more importantly, they undermine a number of tactical and strategic maneuvers employed by military and law enforcement alike to gain advantage in battle, hostile situations, and arrests. To suggest that soldiers on the frontlines are somehow more courageous than those on ordered, lawful missions to scope out a weakness or an opening in the enemy’s defense or those who defensively cover troops from above is to imply that any exploited advantage (Air missions? Advanced weaponry? Manpower superiority? GPS? Infrared?) is a cowardly one. Where do we draw the line? Perhaps in battle with third-world nations we should only utilize machetes and allow gangrene to take our soldiers’ limbs if they get infected? Maybe the cowardly NYPD should send in only one officer to make an arrest, and avoid prior surveillances to gain an unfair edge over the criminals they’re arresting. Were the Navy SEALs who took down Osama Bin Laden under cover of darkness cowards, or were they fighting smart?
Moore went even dumber when he tried on Facebook to explain his tweets, lumping military snipers using Geneva Convention-approved tactics in with cold-blooded murderers (true cowards) in referencing the “sniper” who shot and killed Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Moore’s apology thus requires an apology, if not to Chris Kyle’s widow then certainly to the black community, if not to the black community then to the human community, composed of everyone affected by that tragic loss, or the loss of anyone killed by a murderer’s bullet.
Is it cowardly to stand in silhouette atop the White House, a stark and even obvious target? No doubt the Secret Service agents extensively trained and employed as counter-assault tacticians would disagree. How about this one for Mr. Moore: is it cowardly – or incredibly efficient and intelligent — for actors to use stunt doubles?
Here is a bottom line of perhaps many in the arguments against Moore’s thoughtless jive: supporting our troops does not mean supporting our wars. You can still question a mission or even an entire military involvement without questioning the bravery of the men and women – the same ones who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way — who protect our freedoms every minute of every single day. By all means, if we want to take apart American Sniper for the fake baby that Bradley Cooper cradles or even for the fact that it isn’t Selma, fine, it’s a worthy endeavor. But the notion that snipers who serve in the military or in law enforcement capacities are anything less than heroes is unintelligent…and un-American.
