Restrictive "Rules of Engagement" and the Western tribalism.

OK,

I am going out on a limb. The question I am looking into is simple: "Do restrictive rules of engagement that require Soldiers to make a determination to kill the enemy based on 'threatening acts' shift responsibility for killing an enemy from the State, who normally identifies an enemy by uniform or nationality, to the Soldier, who must make that determination on his or her own?"

The question ties into my own definition of war, which involves the morally sanctioned murder of members of an "out-group." In essence, the population of one "in-group," morally sanctions the murder of an "out-group" based on some idea of justice or revenge. In modern parlance, one nation morally sanctions the murder of members of the military of another nation. In doing this, the Nation defines the enemy who may be killed. This makes killing psychologically simple. However, when the responsibility for determining who the enemy is, who can be killed, is shifted to the Soldier, then the responsibility for killing falls directly on the Soldier.

What I am looking for is papers or books related to the need of an Army to dehumanize the enemy in order to make killing easier. Also, anything on how Soldiers rationalize killing in their own minds.

Any citations will do. I will find the resources on my own.

Thanks

Have you been to www.killology.com? Looks like lots of info available there. All by PH. D. types.

Slap,

Thanks. I have ordered the book "On Combat" advertised on the home page. I will definately spend some time there. :D

Grossman talks a lot about the phsychological preperation needed to kill, but he does not talk to much about what comes after. In the end, the Soldier has to justify in his or her own mind if what he or she did was morally right. I am curious if having a clearly identifiable enemy makes that justification easier or not.

I have an issue with your use of "murder", which implies illegality in the killing. Killing in war, "sanctioned", is NOT murder.

Also, war is about more than killing- it is the application of violence to achieve political ends, but the goal is not about killing. If there was a way to impose political will through violence WITHOUT killing, I think that it would still be war.

Grossman's work may have some good input. The research that supported the TrainFire or QuickFire marksmanship training (mid-60s?) may be useful. This is the system that started using humanoid pop-up targets.

82RedLeg,

My interest in war is psychological and sociological, not political. Therefore, I define war as a natural human activity, not a political activity.

While some may disagree with the exact point in our history that humans started to conduct war as a social activity, there is little doubt that groups of humans have made war on other groups of humans since at least 15,000 years ago, long before anything like politics had come into being. When looking at war as a natural activity, particularly in anthropology, one of the defining charactersitics is that there are deaths, or the reasonable probability of death, as a result of the activity.

(For arguments that war is not a natural human activity, see Fry, D. P. (ed.) (2013). War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views. New York: Oxford University Press; for arguments for war being a natural human activity see Gat, Azar (2006). War in Human Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press)

As a natrual, social activity conducted by one group of humans against another, a couple of prerequisites have to be met. The first is that there are two distinct groups - an "us" versus "them." The second is that the killings are seen as morally acceptable, if not morally laudible, by the party making war. This is where my question originates, not in any political aspects.

When a killing of a "them" by an "us" is part of a war, it is morally justified (at least by "us"), and therefore not murder. But the responsibility for defining the "them" is left to the leadership of the group. When you shift the responsibility for defining the "them" to the Soldier on the ground (based on conditional rules of engagement like ""an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury"), it can be much more difficult to clearly segregate a morally sanctioned killing from a murder. In WWII, if an American Soldier kills a properly uniformed German Soldier, this is morally justifiable. The Soldier never has to question its morality. When the Soldier himself makes that determination, I believe it shifts the requirement for morally justifying the killing to the Soldier. Does that help?

The use of the term "murder" was used to show how an otherwise illegal act would be justified by society. It was the shortest way of phrasing it I could think of.

Interesting thesis. However, in turning this concept around in my brain, I think I should play a bit of a devil's advocate.

I keep coming back to the idea that, even under liberal ROEs, there are still people on a battlefield that should not get engaged. Civilians, noncombatants of various stripes, blue forces, green forces, etc. Wouldn't you say that soldiers and Marines are pretty much always making a determination as to who he should or should not shoot? More restrictive ROEs only mean that another layer (or two or three or...) of discernment about the potential target has to take place. Admittedly, each additional layer is a stressor all unto itself, and they probably combine together exponentially vice linearly... but I'm not really sure that the ultimate responsibility for pulling a trigger in war is ever anywhere except on the soldier or Marine doing it. Particularly since Vietnam, because we all volunteered to go there.

I have friends for whom this is a real problem, so I applaud your efforts here. Good luck.

Former_0302,

You are absolutely correct that Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and even Drone Pilots are always making determinations on when to shoot when non-combatants are on the field of battle. The responsibility is always a personal one. You are also correct that quantifying the apprehension before the shot and/or the feeling of responsibility after the shot, whether linear or exponetial, will be difficult to do.

There are also multiple layers that complicate the question:

1. Modern American society has a culture of individual responsibility versus collective guilt. Where some cultures would have no problem taking revenge on any member of a group for an injustice committed by one of them, Americans tend to want to single out the responsible party. This is different from a "Fueding" society - think Hatfields and McCoys. Killing any McCoy is suitable retribution for a McCoys attack on any Hatfield. Most Americans would not agree with that, but that is exactly what the "us" and "them" distinguishment allowsfor (or even condones). So, perhaps it is easier for an American individualist to kill where he or she can see for themselves the danger posed by the enemy as opposed to simply killing a boy dressed in an enemy uniform that poses no threat. (think about the scene in Band of Brothers where the LT runs across the field and climbs a berm to see a boy in a German Uniform taking a piss, and promptly shoots him.)

2. Does the fact that the Command Structure has not celarly idedentified the "them" that are the enemy allow the Soldiers to create their own version of the "them"? The best case of this is Mai Lai, but in modern time I would say that this allows Soldiers and Marines to see enemy in places where they would not exist under other ROE.

Any other thoughts you have on these or related topics, especially devil's advocate type comments, will be greatly appreciated. I only have one or two voices in my head to talk to, so any additional points of view are always apprecieated. :)

If you have any suggestions on material I could use, I would also greatly appreciate those.