To clarify, I wasn't talking about snipers in particular (I've met two in real life, as you say, a breed apart) and FWIW they get the "incredibly tough" part of SEAL training right, but actually kind of downplay it if you know what SEALS actually do. (Spent a long time in San Diego..) And the movie makes them kind of look like jerks - which is TOTALLY wrong. Special forces guys are generally... really really outstanding individuals.
Some people really are just fine. Others may develop PTSD later.
My family is a military family. My son in law Army (career) - so I know a lot of people are fine (he is one, actually a tour in Afghanistan seems to have cured his lifelong insomnia. Go figure.) So I know (the basics at least) about PTSD etiology post-combat. And I speak from the point of view of ongoing relationships with young people currently serving and deploying. What you say is absolutely true. What is NOT true in my experience (and in the literature as far as I can tell) is that people with full blown PTSD symptoms just spontaneously get better.
My problem with the movie is that it does a great job of portraying the kind of emotional and dare I say
moral difficulties that repeated "hot" combat tours can create. In the movie (which compresses a HELL of a lot of time into a short space) what it shows of his return shows someone way out into PTSD. Not the usual movie flashbacks, but a very nice depiction of hyper vigilance and reactivity. And the wife articulates very well the feeling of so many PTSD supporters that the person they knew isn't there anymore, but the idea that they can come back. Looking at what is in the movie and knowledge of actual PTSD cases, the trajectory of this story at the end... goes off the rails IMHO.
That said, the advice to vets suffering from PTSD to "go out and save the soldiers that are still here" is great advice. And goodness knows spending time with other combat vets IS a really really good thing. Probably the best thing actually. But it is not a panacea, and it is not anything close to the whole story of PTSD, and the damage it can do to families.
Military spouses, good ones, are a breed apart.
They are that. Best friend in San Diego a Navy wife. Daughter an Army wife. Both excellent ones.
Before my daughter married her husband we talked long and hard about what she was signing herself, and their kids, up for. Unlike many wives, she walked in eyes wide open. I am so impressed by their ability to work through all the very difficult stuff that active duty brings up. Very advanced practice indeed.
Really my concern about the movie is that it leaves one with the impression that PTSD doesn't need attention - at least not if you are a badass hero-type. And that for the vast majority of (very young) men who go into combat, who as a rule don't admit ANY kind of weakness or injury (Shake it off son, you're fine.) Or believe in it in each other (because that wouldn't work in a combat situation) that this is a bad bad story to leave them with.
Also, as a long time Clint Eastwood follower and admirer, I can't help but have the feeling that... this was not the movie he set out to make. The acting is AWESOME, the pacing is superb, it is a great film technically, and the script is... really weird. Compared to his stuff from Unforgiven on this script is... inexplicable. He doesn't do hagiography as a rule. It seems like it started out one movie, and ended up totally different. The ending seems really really rushed. The big combat scene totally dominates the second half of the film... not Eastwood's storytelling style at all. Kyle died in Feb. of 2013, Eastwood picked up the project in August of that year, and it was released in Nov. 2014. Eastwood says it is supposed to be about what happens to people after they come home from war - which is the shortest and least developed part of the film. Strange. Maybe at the end of the day Tara Kyle (who I admire very much by the way) ... just didn't want so much of their lives and struggles told on the big screen. I would totally get and respect that. The thing is so very very fraught, and I'm not sure I would trust even Clint Eastwood to get it "right." Or maybe I wouldn't even want to know what he would make of it. In any case, it is not there.
Anyhow, it is a good movie in the sense of a gripping narrative.
It is extremely well acted.
If the point is to get people more concerned about what happens to folks when they come back from war, I think it doesn't do that.
It pretty much buys into all the happy "just get over it" stories.
It is also incredibly unsympathetic to the genuine victims of war - the civilians. But that is another story.
And that is why it is really disappointing to me.