Rep. Zinke discusses 'American Sniper,' US war decisions

Interview

U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke knew Chris Kyle, the subject of "American Sniper," when Zinke was commander of special forces in the Fallujah area of Iraq in 2004.

As the movie has topped box-office ticket sales and landed Oscar nominations, Zinke has also jumped into some of the controversy over its depiction of war, warriors and the impact prolonged conflict has had on American families.

Last week, the Montana Republican clashed with Hollywood figures Seth Rogan and Michael Moore over their criticism of the film. On Friday, Zinke, a Navy SEAL like Kyle, spoke with the Missoulian.

Q: What did you think of the movie "American Sniper?"

A: My view on Kyle is he's kind of a warrior and a hero. I think (director) Clint Eastwood did a spectacular job of telling ("American Sniper" co-author) Scott McEwan's story of Chris Kyle with a twist. He focused on wounds and sacrifice -- wounds physically which we saw with IEDs and the loss of life and limb, and wounds emotionally -- the scars that multiple deployments can have, both with him and his brother and those around him. But also the scars on the family. I say this from the perspective of a commander, but also as a father. My daughter is a Navy diver, and my son is an active-duty Navy SEAL.

My wife and I went to the movie together. Lola had two small children at home when I, my daughter and her husband were all deployed to the Middle East during the same time. From my wife's perspective, it showed the family sacrifice and what it means to have loved ones overseas.

I could understand what Chris was going through. He was home, but he wasn't home all the way.

I have seen what I call 'the wars.' It started a little before 9/11. We were engaged in Afghanistan and Africa. We've had special ops in 63 countries. In my Naval career, I've fought in dozens of countries. I do understand the toll when normal is being deployed, and not at home. There's a great deal of strain in the force from this period of 'the wars.' It's the longest sustained combat in the history of our country.

The movie talked about things that are not talked about a lot that should be. The emotional strain of the family. There's the scene when he's driving home and sees an aggressive driver. He matches that driver to his experience in Iraq, where that driver is a threat. I have seen that personally with operators who've spent more time there than they have at home. There are little things most people would discount. You're playing in the park and someone jumps out of the bushes -- you're used to determining threat and non-threat in a heartbeat.

When the movie was done, that final scene was the funeral scene. People waited through all the credits to be done to watch it. It was like being presented with a person's life. Certainly you walked out in a very thoughtful, respectful way.

I do not know Mr. Eastwood, but I do know Scott. The movie took a different direction from the book. It was direction that needed to be presented.

Q: The movie has two stories, one about being the best warrior you can be and one about how extended conflict dehumanizes our best warriors. Are we wearing out our military?

A: People misjudge me a little. I see this from a commander's perspective and also as a father. I've been to more funerals than any person should. I am the last person that advocates war. But when we do go to war, we owe it to those we put in harm's way that we have rules of engagement that are conducive to winning, that they have the right equipment, and the best leadership to win decisively on the field of battle. We need a plan, and we need milestones when to bring them home.

We have a habit as a country of overusing the military for extended periods of time. Withdrawal can't be on a timeline. It has to be set on conditions and based on terrain. In the exodus out of Iraq, we're seeing the effects of just leaving. We left before there was control of chemical weapons stockpiles, without a status-of-forces agreement. We left before the Sunni and Kurds we fought with and fought alongside with were stable, or without empowering them. We left on a political rhetoric.

When America doesn't lead from the front, when the administration doesn't honor our promises, it has ramifications worldwide. One of the real consequences is our enemies don't fear us. Our allies don't trust us. We don't need to be the worldwide policeman, but we need to honor our commitments. The Middle East has rapidly destabilized.

Q: President Barack Obama will soon ask for more military authorization to go after ISIL. What is your checklist for evaluating a presidential request for getting into a fight?

A: What I want to see is a well-laid-out, thoughtful plan, with timelines, milestones for what the military should do and can do.

The overwhelming consensus of people I've fought with is the strategy has to be multi-pronged. It has to include ground troops to help supply the Sunni and the Kurds and the Iraqi central government with military assistance, ammunition, medical supplies and food. We have to have ground forces to use our air assets effectively. Just an operation from the air alone is simply nonsense.

I'll be critical of this administration. They have yet to say the words "Islamic terrorist organization.' We need to make sure these Islamic terrorist organizations don't become mainstream. We're fighting an ideology as much as a group of radical terrorists. It doesn't represent mainstream Islamic faith, but we have to do our part as the most powerful nation in the world to make sure we value our coalitions and allies to make sure we're ready to engage with a plan.

The hard truth is the air operations are not effective. The drone operations are not effective. I'm listening to Secretary (of State John) Kerry saying we've killed this many ISIS warriors and taken back this many kilometers, but the Pentagon can't confirm it. That's just like Vietnam, where every bomb we dropped equals this many terrorists we have killed or injured. It's folly. It doesn't reflect the truth on the ground.

At this rate, we'll never recapture Mosul. And Mosul isn't just critical as a symbol. The Mosul dam economically controls that section of Iraq. Mosul had fissionable material, and that's now in an unknown location.

I do think our southern U.S. border needs to be included in a strategy. It's a nexus between immigration and national security. I've seen multiple reports that 75 countries are represented by individuals apprehended at the border. If children can come across our border, what makes this administration think ISIS can't do the same? Or al-Qaida, with weapons of mass destruction? We know they have access to materials.

I think our southern border is a clear and present danger. The northern border is a different problem set than our southern border. We're not going to put a fence between America and Canada, across Glacier Park. I grew up there. We can use some technological controls. We work with the Canadians more, and there's a lot of property we share, along with tribal lands. Canada has as much or more control of the border than we do. Getting into Mexico is a lot easier than getting into Canada. The children didn't come from Canada, they came from the southern border. I do view it as a different problem set."

Q: The Navy SEALs are the most publicized unit of the American military, with "American Sniper," "Lone Survivor," "Seal Team Six" and all the books and stories about killing Osama bin Laden. In the process, they've run into serious credibility problems, including Chris Kyle losing a civil defamation lawsuit to fellow SEAL Jesse Ventura. What's going on?

A: That is a change from when I came in. When I was in SEAL Team Six, we didn't even utter the name. I still have old cards and different covers. We were absolutely very careful to never expose who we were. That is a significant change in the last few years. The rescue of Private (Jessica) Lynch, bin Laden, Captain Rogers -- there's a number of events that occurred recently. With the killing of bin Laden, within a few hours it was disclosed that SEAL Team Six was responsible. It should have been U.S. special forces. I don't think the administration should have identified the specific team that conducted the specific operation. Now it's at a point where it is too much.

With Ventura, at the end of the day, they were drinking at a bar and who knows what happened. He filed a civil suit about defamation that resulted in a loss (of reputation, which Kyle profited from). I never like to see veterans hurt other veterans, and I find it offensive when a SEAL sues another SEAL. We had a rule that you settle it in private. In public, you should not dishonor the service and the reputation of another veteran.

We have to be careful. As a former state senator and now congressman, I believe the public has a right to know we have these forces and how much they cost, what their overall general capabilities are and why it's important to have these forces. We need to tell the good stories and tell about how much sacrifice it is to a family. Every American should be proud of their SEAL teams.

And it's not just the SEALs but the whole military, including the National Guard. The successful operation that resulted in the killing of bin Laden probably had 5,000 servicemen involved in making that possible. The private who made sure the fuel cap was on correctly -- his job was important too.

Source