Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
A separate programme touches on this issue of killing. The opening paragraph:

Link to report / summary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13687796

The linked pod-casts are entitled more starkly IMHO 'The Kill Factor' and the sub-title is

Link to pod-casts:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gyhg8

I cannot immediately recall a thread on this theme, apologies if there is one.

I am sure many here have read combat histories and books such as John Keegan's 'The Face of Battle' so are familiar with the issues raised.
David, discussed this programme with our mutual friend across town from you and we reached the conclusion that they are trying to create a story here where no real story exists.

Two people's experiences were used and they referred to a third (a sniper who killed 10 people and now spends all his time surfing off Hawaii) which hardly is a representative sample.

Most people in my experience adjust to having killed in close combat far better than programmes like this lead us to believe. I wonder what the "disability" pension is for people claiming "issues" relating to having looked into a man's eyes and then killed him.

The "experts" interviewed in this programme seem to agree that (psychological and emotional) preparation is necessary prior to deployment on ops is vital as is the wind-down between combat and reintroduction back into the "world".

This article is worth a read: David Livingstone Smith: Psychology Of Violence

What in my opinion is the most important is to assess recruits and officer cadets as to the emotional and psychological stability prior to acceptance into the service. Again my experience the head-cases were generally already screwed up before they joined and then you can add the chancers who sniff a free pension ride if they ape the symptoms.

I am glad to see the following:

Lt Col Kilner who lectures at the West Point Military Academy is quoted as saying:

"We talk about destroying, engaging, dropping, bagging - you don't hear the word killing."
I agree, lets tell it like it is. I have said around here a number of times that the role of the infantry is to close with and kill the enemy(that deals with the official words "destroy" and "engage"). Troopie slang for killing varies from army to army, we used words like "pull", "slot" and "rip" meaning to shoot/kill someone. I don't think that is a psychological means to sanitize the act of killing.

I used to organise to gather the troop for a few drinks (sometimes more) at the first opportunity after combat. This allowed myself and my sergeant to observe the troopies for any observable changes.

The regular observation from me was listening to the troopies war stories it seemed that the contact they were in they killed more than double than in the contact I was in. Funny thing that.

Hesitancy to kill was seldom observed in my experience. It happened by very seldom.