People Do Good Things In The Name Of Islam Too

"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, to do good is my religion."- Thomas Paine

Too much focus has been placed lately on the negative things which have been done in the name of religion (Islam in particular).  It's time we took a moment to look at the brighter side of Islam and its varied interpretations.  Groups like Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and ISIS show us the worst examples of people abusing Islam, but what about those who use it in a positive way.  There are over 1,600,000,000 (1.6 billion) Muslims in the world, while the estimated enrollment numbers for the extremist groups previously mentioned numbers somewhere around 50,000.  Even if we triple this number to account for any other extremist groups that may or may not be out there (and this is an absurdly high estimate), the total percentage of Muslims who are members of terrorist groups still wouldn't even reach one percent of one percent of the Muslims in the world (.0001% to be exact).  In short, it goes without saying that not all Muslims are bad.  But hopefully this post will succeed in highlighting some positive examples of Islam.

One of the best examples of this can be seen in one of the pillars of Islam itself: the Zakaat.  Similar to the practice of tithing in Christianity, the Zakaat is a tax which is usually considered obligatory for Muslims to pay if they are able.  The proceeds of this tax are intended to go towards providing food and clothing for the poor, in addition to other social welfare and development programs. 

A handy chart for your reference

Another pillar of Islam, the observation of Ramadan, holds a similar regard for the less fortunate.  Some people view the requirement of fasting during the Islamic holy month (where neither food or drink is permitted) as being cruel.  It is important to note that those who are sick or doing very strenuous work can be exempted from fasting (they can often just make up those days some other time during the year).  The purpose of refraining from food and drink (as well as smoking, dancing, and sex) is to remove things which can distract from the worship of God and to remember the sufferings of the less fortunate.  Nearly one billion people go without access to clean water every day and at least as many endure extreme hunger.  The practice of fasting (when done out of appreciation rather than decree) helps remind people of the suffering which still exists in this world.

Just like other religious groups, there are plenty of Islamic international charity organizations.   Groups like the International Islamic Relief Organization and Islamic Relief USA are two such organizations which promote charity by funneling Zakaat contributions and donations into large-scale programs aimed at combating humanitarian disasters around the world.  They are often among the first relief organizations to become involved in refugee and humanitarian relief work when groups like ISIS start taking over.

All of this highlights the fact that there are about as many interpretations of Islam as there are Muslims themselves.  A prime example of this is the story of Thanaa El-Naggar. She identifies as a Muslim woman, yet does not actively practice many of the "typical" behaviors commonly associated with Islam (wearing a veil, abstaining from alcohol).  However, she prays often and fully believes in the existence of God and the elevated status of Muhammad.  Like nearly every person in the world, she picks and chooses which examples and behaviors seem right for her situation.  Even the most devout Christian rarely keeps all of the biblical laws of the Sabbath laid down in the first five books of the Bible.  For non-Muslims to point out someone's behavior as not following "true Islam" would be like a British person telling and American they are incorrectly celebrating Independence Day.

There is definitely something wrong about this though...

What all of this means is that we shouldn't focus only on what religion says you can't do, but focus instead on the positive things it encourages people to do.  We are all familiar with the restrictions in most contemporary Islamic interpretations against thinks like drinking, eating pork, and rolling around naked in a kiddie pool full of non-halal jello, but we forget that religion also empowers people to make meaningful positive change.  Women received vastly more rights under the first Islamic society than they had before.  Unfortunately some modern societies in the Middle East have been slow to improve upon the spirit of this empowerment. However, the majority of Muslim women in the world enjoy far more freedom than your average depiction of an oppressed Muslim woman.

Ultimately, religion is an intensely personal experience, far more that most religious leaders want people to believe.  People use it to enslave or empower both themselves and others.  Like any other organizational system, it can be used for either good or evil (or sometimes just really misguided) purposes.  In the end, maybe religion, like socioeconomic class, gender, and even ethnicity have a lot less to do with what someone says you are, and a lot more to do with your own personal identity.

Why People Join ISIS...And How To Stop Them

"We know from experience that the best way to protect people, especially young people, from falling into the grip of violent extremists is the support of their family, friends, teachers and faith leaders."- President Obama on ISIS Recruitment

Summit on Countering Violent Extremism

The violence of the so-called "Islamic State" is at the forefront of America's current discussion on the Middle East.  This week, the White House has been hosting a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism about curbing the recruitment of America's young Muslims into organizations like ISIS.  Thus far, America's strategy at combating the forces of ISIS has been focused predominantly on the military aspect of this fight (no surprise there).  That aspect is certainly necessary to prevent the spread of ISIS in the region, but it doesn't address the underlying reasons for the group's existence or stop people from wanting to join it.  To do that, we must understand the logic behind the group and its main goals.  Recent articles such as this one from The Atlantic breakdown the goals and motivations of ISIS and shed a critical light on the need for a more nuanced understanding of this group.  In short, the reason ISIS continues to be a threat and people continue to join it is because humanity has not yet rid itself of the idea of this group.  Let's look at the overall goals of ISIS and some of the reasons why a person might join in their crusade (hint: it's not because they are evil, crazy villains).

Above: Not a typical ISIS Member

First, Islamic extremism is not monolithic.  Organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hamas have very, very different goals in mind from ISIS.  These groups desire political concessions and are willing to make treaties to get what they want.  The goals of ISIS, on the other hand, are apocalyptic.  ISIS requires territory and legitimacy, not political gains, as a means to bring about their violent interpretation of the end of days.  In fact, they roundly reject any and all political systems other than their version of Islam, refusing to work within any international body or make any sort of deal with a sovereign nation.

What are the goals of ISIS?  Basically an Islamic version of the apocalypse. They seek the end of days and follow several Qur'anic verses which suggest that a Caliphate (Islamic society ruled by what a single religious leader) must be installed before this can happen.  Then, according to some interpretations, an anti-Messiah shows up, and Jesus arrives just in time to lead the Muslims to victory (yes, Jesus).  Its not unlike Christian millennialism which seeks the accomplishment of certain events (the Rapture, rise of anti-Christ...) in order to bring about the end of the world.  It too is pretty brutal (fire, brimstone, and so forth), but most people who look hopefully to the Christian apocalypse only think of it in terms of something to one day look forward to (but not actively bring about).  Similarly, most Muslims who actually believe in this "End of Days" basically think of it as something that would be ideal to have one day (when everyone is already a Muslim so nobody really suffers under it) but not something to actually bring about any time soon.

Jesus gets a 1000 year reign in Islam too

The Atlantic's article makes a good point: It isn't really correct to say ISIS is un-Islamic.  ISIS is actually very Islamic, just not at all the good kind.  They have taken all of the worst and least compromising ideas of Islam and made a society out of it. This society fits in pretty well with the ancient times of the medieval world just like every other society of the time, but its failure to adapt to modernity (which is literally the point of their society right now) makes it seem really, really brutal in comparison.  They consider themselves the only true Muslims, and thus believe themselves to be like the early society of Islam under Muhammad (according to the traditional interpretation) which expanded into non-Muslim territory.

This all begs the question: Why would anyone possibly consider joining this group?  There are several theories on group dynamics and behavioral psychology which help explain this.  Many believe that these individuals are longing for a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives and see joining this group as a means to facilitate this.  They are often marginalized from society and want to become a part of something much bigger than themselves.  In this regard, they aren't much different from people who join other (not necessarily Islamic) extremist groups.

Still, in the case of ISIS, religion is obviously a big motivator of people who wish to join. Many are enticed by the idea of joining an "Islamic State" in its "purest" form.  They see membership as part of the ultimate struggle between good vs. evil, while themes of eternal salvation are obviously a big drawing factor.  In their minds, the Caliphate is a vessel for salvation, and pledging their loyalty (a concept called bay'a) to the Caliph is of utmost importance to achieving this salvation.  There are also the "positive" aspects of this society as viewed by its proponents.  While the society imposes a very strict version of Shari'a law (law based on the actions and saying of Muhammad and the Qur'an), this society also offers things like free healthcare and a strong sense of community welfare.  This section of The Atlantic's article in particular shows this irony:

"Choudary took pains to present the laws of war under which the Islamic State operates as policies of mercy rather than of brutality. He told me the state has an obligation to terrorize its enemies—a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict."

This is why people can turn so quickly to such extreme violence once exposed to the group.  Suddenly, those who were once marginalized become the powerful, their every action justified as a means to a righteous end. 

These guys truly believe they are making the world a better place

So how can such an ideology be stopped? Not by military means alone.  President Obama's recent request to Congress for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force means that the conflict is not likely to end anytime soon.  An invasion would ruin the "Islamic State" by ending its hold over territory and the Iraqi and Syrian populations.  However,  it would also be a huge propaganda victory for ISIS, proving once again that America is susceptible to provocation and quick to begin waging war against Muslims.  The invasion of Iraq helped bring about the conditions which created ISIS, another prolonged military campaign probably won't help things either.

The roots of ISIS are an ideological struggle within Islam which has been going on for centuries.  Islam's prominent contemporary scholars and clerics have to do the heavy lifting of providing the appropriate religious counters to the ISIS ideology.  ISIS does not represent Islam, but it is a problem which Islam has to accept in order for moderate Islam to win the ideological battle.  This blog has stated before that Muslims should not have to apologize for these actions and many prominent leaders denounce ISIS and its ideology (again, not that they should have to).  Still, many Muslims throughout the world are still in a position to curb this ideology from expanding.  

Rather than expelling Muslims who start to become enticed by the propaganda of ISIS, peaceful mosques and religious communities would do better to embrace these individuals as devoted (but often marginalized or frustrated) members of the community seeking self-worth.  By providing the sense of brotherhood and religious purpose (which is often what they are really seeking in the first place), and doing so in a peaceful context, these individuals can be shown the problems with the ISIS ideology and can be prevented from even wanting to travel to fight for them in the first place.  

Over 20,000 people have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS

Excommunicating members who begin preaching ISIS ideology only confirms them in their righteousness, driving them into communities of like-minded believers who will encourage this further adoption of violent beliefs.  The desire to expel them outright is understandable.  After all, many communities wish to be clear in their disapproval of ISIS and do not want to gain the attention of the Intelligence Community by keeping these members around.  For its part, U.S. security agents ought to take more care to build trusting relationships with Muslim communities in the U.S. rather than spying on Muslims en masse. These are some of the key points of the program being discussed this week to stop religious extremist recruitment. 

Ultimately, ISIS is so narrow-minded and brutal that it is its own worst enemy.  Eventually, this so-called "Islamic State" will crumble under the weight of its own brutality, showing the world once again that this is the type of horror which can be unleashed when an ideology goes too far in maintaining its interpretation of purity.  When that happens, there will be no great battle in Jerusalem, no shining Mahdi (savior) to carry the last remnants of ISIS fighters to eternal victory.  There will be only death, millions of broken lives, and another embarrassment for a worldwide community of rational believers.  


TL;DR: You can't kill an idea with bullets alone.

Please Sirs, Can I Have Some War?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

President Obama at a press release on his AUMF request

On Wednesday, President Obama asked Congress for an official Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight the insurgent group in Iraq and Syria known as ISIS (among other names).  This authorization (you can read all three pages here) would replace a similar one from 2002 which focused on the impending Iraq war.  However, it does not repeal an authorization passed immediately after the events of September 11, 2001 to combat global terrorism (since al-Qaeda is still a thing).  It is hard to keep all of these different authorizations straight, so let's just start with the basics of how ISIS rose to power and what this current authorization would entail.

Last summer, militant fighters loosely associated with al-Qaeda began taking over large sections of northern Iraq and Syria, proclaiming the region as the "Islamic State."  They rose to power in the sparsely populated and war-ravaged areas of the northern Middle East.  Taking advantage of the destabilizing effects of both the Syrian Civil War and the US occupation of Iraq (along with the subsequent ending of this war), these fighters have been ruthless in their conquest of significant portions of the region including key cities such as Mosul in northern Iraq.

Obviously, lots of instability in Syria

Last September, President Obama outlined his plan for providing significant tactical and advisory support to groups fighting ISIS (mainly the Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga forces) along with an intense campaign of airstrikes.  So far, the results of this campaign have been debatable.  The rapid progress of ISIS through Iraq has been halted and cities such as Kobani have been retaken.  However, ISIS remains a strong force in the territories they still hold including Mosul, one of Iraq's largest cities.

Whether successful or not (this is a debate which will be raised in another post), it is very likely this program will continue.  In my opinion, this strategy takes a much more realistic stance of helping those who directly fight ISIS (like the Kurds), rather than fighting their battles for them.  It is a longer process than invading the country ourselves, but it is refreshing that an administration realizes that there are no quick military fixes when it comes to foreign policy.

The main point of this proposed authorization is the section which allows the President to use whatever limited military means (with some major exceptions) as he deems necessary to fight ISIS and anyone fighting in support of it. This would essentially be a Congressional green light to continue the campaign of airstrikes which have been going on since ISIS became a serious threat last summer.  This new resolution, however, would also expand the President's powers to use small Special Forces units or even limited defensive weaponry.  Previously, the administration had been using the AUMF from 2001 (which was meant to fight al-Qaeda) to combat ISIS (which has some origins from this group). 

ISIS fighters posing like Charlie's Angels

However, this authorization has specific limitations.  In keeping with Obama's insistence on avoiding another prolonged ground war, the resolution states that, "The authority granted...does not authorize the use of the US Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations."  Furthermore, the authorization requires the President to address Congress every six months about the actions taken as a result of this authorization and requires a re-authorization of this resolution after three years. However, fears about this mission expanding beyond the scope of this authorization remain valid.

There are concerns that this would allow him to pursue ISIS fighters anywhere in the world, but the political realities of the region mean that he still couldn't just roll tanks into whatever country he wants.  This authorization is mostly symbolic, the administration is already doing what they want to do, they just want to make it more legitimate in the eyes of the law (international law notwithstanding).  It provides a more firm legal footing for the President's actions while clearly defining what is (and what is not) part of the administration's ISIS strategy.  Regarding the even greater question of whether or not the U.S. should intervene in the first place, that is a debate for another post.

Territory held by ISIS as of Jan 15

Fortunately, Obama seems firmly committed to not getting involved in a land war in Asia (the greatest classical blunder I hear).  At least this authorization has an expiration date of three years (unless further extended) unlike the 9-11 war powers authorization, and is most tailored to the current situation rather than an open-ended war on a vague enemy (Terror?).  Still, its significance should not be downplayed.  This is as close to a formal declaration of war as Congress is likely to get (since we stopped doing that after WWII).

In all, there appears to be little in here about Americans giving up personal liberty, so this development will likely be less controversial than the Patriot Act has become.  Though it appears there will be somewhat of a debate on this authorization, it is highly likely this new resolution will pass.  War powers authorizations and pseudo-declarations of war should never be taken lightly.  We should all think very carefully about the implications of granting the power to make war before we immediately rally-around-the-flag and support it.  Obama has long mentioned a desire to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but it (along with the Patriot Act) remains a critical part of the administration's anti-terrorism policy.  Perhaps in the fear which gripped the nation after 9-11, we allowed ourselves to become a little too eager to rubber stamp any concessions on liberty in exchange for security.  In the new normal of this emerging century, it seems that whenever one enemy is defeated, two more spring up to take its place. 


TL;DR: President Obama asks Congress to give stronger legal backing to the fight against ISIS and will probably get it.

Jordan, America's Underrated Ally in the Middle East

"We are waging this war to protect our faith, our values and human principles and our war for their sake will be relentless and will hit them in their own ground"- King Abdullah II on ISIS

Jordan: An oddly shaped country (thanks Britain)

On Wednesday, the radical terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as just Islamic State and now controlling much of northern Iraq and Syria) released a video showing their fighters burning a Jordanian hostage alive.  Muath al-Kaseasbeh, a Jordanian pilot who participated in Jordan's airstrikes against ISIS (as part of the broader U.S.-led coalition) was captured late last year after his plane was shot down over ISIS-held territory.  Though Jordan had been negotiating with ISIS for the release of al-Kaseasbeh, it appears that this brutal execution had already taken place nearly a month before the video was released.   

The Kingdom of Jordan's response was swift and aggressive.  The very next morning, Jordan hanged two prisoners who were part of terror attacks linked to ISIS (one of whom was previously part of the prisoner swap negotiations).  Jordan also drastically ramped up its bombing campaign against ISIS targets.  There was a pretty awesome rumor going around that Jordan's King Abdullah II was personally flying planes in these airstrikes.  Though Abdullah did not personally lead the assault, he has vowed to play a much bigger part in the coalition against ISIS.

At least this is still real.  This is actually the King of Jordan...on Star Trek.

Jordan is a small, yet critical ally of the United States in the Middle East.  Though only about the size of Indiana, the country of about 7 million people has only recently been considered an independent entity.  For most of its recent history, the area known today as Jordan was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire (which held most of this region until World War I).  Following World War I, the British and French drew (somewhat arbitrary) borders and divided up the region into a series of Mandates (like saying "we are going to run your country until we think you are ready to do it yourself").  Jordan finally gained its independence in 1946.


Jordan's history has been tied closely with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Jordan joined the coalition of Arab nations in the 1948 war with Israel, and annexed the predominantly Palestinian territory of the West Bank.  Israel then recaptured the West Bank in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.  Since then, Jordan has taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees from the West Bank (today, roughly half of Jordan's seven million residents are originally from Palestine).  Though the nation signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1994, there is still tension between the two nations over the large number of Palestinians living in Jordan. 

Throughout most of its recent history, Jordan has remained a stable, (mostly) reliable ally to the United States.  Though Jordan did not participate in the coalition against Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003, Jordan has long supported the efforts of Western powers to eliminate religiously motivated terrorism.  Even the destabilizing effects of the Arab Spring protests (which sparked the Syrian civil war) were minimal throughout the country.  When protests began to surface in Jordan in 2011, Abdullah announced several vague reforms to expand the democratic process, though these have yet to fully materialize (a point which has drawn criticism within the country).  In all, Jordan has largely managed to avoid the wars, coups, and political instabilities of its regional neighbors.

Are you not entertained?

Jordan's political system includes a king with nearly absolute rule, but Jordan also has a written constitution and a parliament loosely modeled after the British fashion. Since taking power following the death of his father in 1999, Abdullah has generally been credited with improving Jordan's economy, encouraging a more open press and society, and making some basic reforms for women's rights.  Though some discussion of moving towards a more democratic system has occurred since the Arab Spring, Abdullah still maintains the vast majority of power in the country.  Still, Jordan remains one of the most pro-Western countries in the region and has long supported close ties with the United States.  This has been a point on contention for some in Jordan, as the close relationship makes Jordan a more likely target for ISIS attacks (its close proximity notwithstanding).

Regarding the most recent fight against ISIS, Jordan's support has been mostly providing intelligence and assistance for U.S. military operations.  Now, the Senate Armed Services Committee has agreed that more military support and better hardware should be given to Jordan to fight ISIS (not our best military hardware though, which is reserved for us, or even our second best, which is reserved for Israel, more like our third best hardware).  With Obama's recent decision to begin asking Congress for official War Powers (the leftovers from the 9/11 war powers acts apparently just aren't cutting it anymore), it is likely this support will increase.

Hopefully, the extremely brutal tactics of ISIS will drive fence-sitters in Jordan to support the nation's ramping up of its efforts against the extremist group (previously this support has been met with some criticism).  A similar experience occurred after Al-Qaeda bombed several weddings in Jordan during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  Once this happened, many who were somewhat sympathetic to the group (due to its anti-American sentiments) quickly withdrew their support for the group.

Several Jordanian women with posters of Muath al-Kaseasbeh including his wife Anwar (center)

If anything, it is becoming clear that the death of al-Kaseasbeh will not have been in vain, as it seems Jordan is becoming very serious about its promise to provide meaningful support to the American operations.  The United Arab Emirates has also pledged to take its fight against ISIS more seriously after the U.S. promised to increase its commitment to search and rescue squads in the event more pilots are shot down.  Though ISIS has claimed that this week's airstrikes killed an American hostage, this unsubstantiated claim is likely a (weak) attempt to get the coalition against ISIS to start fighting amongst itself.  So long as ISIS continues to use such brutal tactics as public beheadings, burning prisoners alive, and forcing children to be suicide bombers, the coalition fighting against it is unlikely to fall apart anytime soon.

TL;DR; Jordan is a close ally, though often underrated compared to regional giants like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Why American Sniper Is So Controversial (When It Didn't Have To Be)

"My Regrets Are About The People I Couldn't Save." - Chris Kyle

Movie Poster for American Sniper

Wow, this was a tough one.  The movie American Sniper has generated significant controversy in the past couple of weeks for its portrayal of U.S. sniper Chris Kyle in his tours during the Iraq war.  There were many different topics which came to mind about this particular post, and all of them seemed likely to generate strong feelings by one group of people or another.  It seemed for awhile that this topic was just too hot to handle.  But then I decided I would try to think through some of the reasons people might be upset with this film.  Here are a few reasons why this movie seems to make so many people upset (and so many others hyped up).

American Sniper is about Chris Kyle.  Better yet, American Sniper IS Chris Kyle (or at the least the war as seen through his eyes).  We watch as he witnesses 9/11 and then signs up for the military, we are right there on a rooftop in Baghdad as he sees a kid try to throw a grenade at some U.S. troops, we hear his justification that everything he did was done to protect his men.  The scenes and dialogue seem to very strongly represent his thoughts, feelings, and points of view on the war and his actions.  All of this is understandable in the context of war, but we as the viewers are not (and almost all have never been) in war.  It lays bare the facts of what he did, but provides only the minimal amount of context needed to make the audience feel (at least somewhat) comfortable with his actions.

I would like to make one thing very clear on this: I am neither condoning nor condemning the actions of Chris Kyle.  War is messy, chaotic, and often tragic.  He was doing his job as a solider by protecting the men and women who served with him.  Put in that terrible situation, it is difficult to determine how anyone might react.  The real concern with this film does not come from what was shown in the movie so much as what was not shown.  For instance, it is important to show that the American soldiers had families and lives back home, but the Iraqi people (not to be confused with the insurgents) do not receive any such humanizing experience in this film.  There are only a few times where the movie shows Chris directly interacting with Iraqi civilians, and they are almost universally negative.  When a family decides to help the U.S. forces find a brutal insurgent fighter known as the Butcher, the family asks for a hundred thousand dollars in return.  When Chris and his squad are invited to celebrate the Eid Al-Adha dinner with an Iraqi man, it turns out he has a huge weapons cache in his house and is an insurgent fighter waiting to betray them.

Stuffed Grape Leaves with a Side of Betrayal

It isn't that things like this never occurred (there are plenty of documented cases like this), it is that they are the only interactions depicted in this film and thus are the only examples upon which a person can base their opinions of Iraqis in this movie (this becomes problematic when millions of people watch this film and draw conclusions about the war based upon it).  These are probably some of the experiences that stick out most in his story, but omitting any positive experience of the Iraqi population (of which he must have had at least a few) leads to the perception that the film is skewed towards favoring American troops while demonizing the Iraqis.  This is one of the critical areas which could have been improved upon to prevent some of the controversy surrounding this movie.  

As I hinted at before, the film does little to provide context for the battles we witness.  The straight-to-the-point, hard hitting manner in which battles are presented generates a similar reaction to when people see a generic and potentially controversial news headline.  For instance, a headline which reads "White Cop Kills Black Teenager" already generates (in some people) anger and preconceived notions of innocence and guilt (on both the officer or the kid) before any details are given (was the officer being attacked, was the kid just going about his business?).  In the same way, this film shows exactly what happened, but then does little to help explain it, leaving the viewer to use their own biases to fill in the gaps.  If you want to see a brave American fighting for freedom in this film, that's what you will end up seeing.  If you want to see a narrative of "white people are good and brown people are bad," you will end up seeing that instead.  The film reflects our own beliefs and biases, and the fact that it does little to challenge these is probably the single greatest reason it has become so controversial.

The way this film works

I can fully appreciate the main theme behind this movie: that veterans need far more attention and that we need to attempt to understand their struggles (especially the extreme levels of PTSD for current veterans).  However at its core, this is not the primary focus of this film.  Far more screen time is devoted to Chris hunting down a rival sniper or shooting insurgents than his work with veterans.  In all, his work with returning veterans takes up all of about three or four scenes towards the end.  Even in places where the film does show the haunting effects of war in a peaceful atmosphere, it doesn't explain them.  We see Chris violently subduing a playful dog (he was attacked by a vicious one in an earlier scene), but the psychological reasons for his reaction would have been far better explained through dialogue between him and his fellow veterans.  By explaining what he is going through rather than just showing it, people could then understand exactly how PTSD leaves soldiers on edge and sometimes even longing for combat again. Regrettably, we instead see scene after scene of Chris increasing his kill count with only the occasional PTSD episode, thus making his memorial service scenes at the end appear like more of a acknowledgement of the lives he took rather than a celebration of the ones he saved.

Overall, the movie accurately portrays the difficulty of making decisions in war. The movie depicts Iraqis and the insurgency exactly how an American solider would NEED to view the war in order to do what they did (anyone could be a potential enemy, danger is around every corner...).  If soldiers like Chris Kyle were constantly thinking about the economic and social conditions which led some people to join an insurgency, they would probably get killed.  This makes sense in the context of war, but when viewed in its raw form on screen (without any explanation that this is the mindset needed to conduct war), it appears callous, uncaring, and brutal.

Furthermore, the film is a great representation of the motivations, values, and feelings of an American solider, but it does nothing to help explain or evaluate these ideas.  It takes them at face value.  It does not take the time to explain these beliefs and motivations, so some people only see a justified American hero while others see a murderous villain.  Lines by Chris such as "I don't know what a Qur'an looks like, but it looked like he had a gun" are examples of how people can very quickly get distracted by insensitive quotes and misunderstand what the movie is trying to say.

Looks a lot like most books really....

In all, it is the decision to show the war through only one person's perspective that is probably the primary reason for this controversy.  Like looking through a sniper scope, we get a very detailed, but detached picture of one aspect of this war, but do not see many of the important surrounding details. 

War sucks.  It is messy, complicated, and impossible to predict.  We can debate the merits or justifications of the war in Iraq until the end of time, but it happened, and now the world has to contend with its consequences.  Like many American films before it, this movie makes the war about America.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe more films should emphasize the Iraqi perspective.  We are quick to remember the 4,425 American soldiers who died in the conflict, but almost nobody knows about the estimated over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.  Chris Kyle and many others were seriously scarred by their time in war, and that is a terrible tragedy.  At the some time, however, an entire country and society was upended by this war (again, not commenting on whether this was justified or not, just stating that it happened).  It looks like in both film and reality, we as Americans have continued to make the conflict almost entirely about us and how WE were affected, forgetting that many others suffered greatly as well....


TL;DR: Not necessarily a bad film, just very misunderstood.