Ever since I first heard of Chris Kyle something that immediately struck me is the focus on the fact that he was 'The deadliest sniper in US Service History' for his 155 kills that the U.S. Navy assigned to him.
The fixation with this fact is further compounded by Chris Kyle's insistence, and many other media outlets' republishing of, that he actually killed 255 people.
I write this mainly to invite the community to share their impression of this 'title' and what it possibly says about American culture that the title exists and that people of varied motivations take interest in this title.
My own impressions below the fold...
Personally, I find myself at conflict with the title and its very existence and focus for many reasons.
I think a lot of people, maybe very well-meaning towards US Servicemembers, accept the 155-200+ kills and its public veneration because it presents as seemingly tangible evidence that he saved the lives of a lot of US Servicemembers.
Some part of me would like to accept that justification but I just can't reasonably do that because it's not necessary. You don't need to represent his actions like a hunter's trophy collection in order to express a simple appreciation that he fulfilled his duties to his comrades to the best of his abilities. Finnish Sniper Simo Häyhä, who holds the "record" of most confirmed kills with a rifle, chooses to describe his service that way.
Also, I find something really inhumane about the focus on the number of kills made because you absolutely can't separate the fact that those kills were made in service of an aggressive military action.
The 'honorific' becomes an endorsement of aggressive military action because despite how I keep seeing people say "it's not about politics" the context is inseparable.
The very notion of a 'deadliest sniper' honorific becomes something of an absurd extension of meritocracy. The notion that someone accomplishes what Chris Kyle does due to possessing some innate quality of 'deadliness'. It's absurd for so many reasons.
Firstly it's just on many levels, luck. Luck that Chris Kyle didn't get hit by shrapnel, or get spotted by an Iraqi Sniper, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Also, if we're using 'deadliest sniper' as equivalent to 'most competent sniper' then that appears to me to diminish the skills and sacrifices of snipers from past American wars. To be blunt, Chris Kyle was mostly facing off against Iraqi Insurgents who had really minimal to no actual combat training. Combat training that in theory could have decreased the kill count that is given such importance by so many.
By comparison, American Snipers in World War 2 faced off against highly trained, highly disciplined, highly motivated, competently lead, and well supported German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers (and snipers). So, it seems to me that American Snipers weren't able to be 'the deadliest' because they were fighting soldiers who were harder to kill and more dangerous.
By boasting about being 'the deadliest' did Chris Kyle on some level believe he was better than American Snipers in World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War?
So, the other reason I can't give a pass to commentary about 'the deadliest sniper' is because it inherently represents an endorsement of meritocracy.