How soldiers deal with the job of killing

[JMA]

In Chapter 2 he states:

The ideal response to killing in war should be one similar to a mercy killing, sadness mingled with respect.

The ideal response?

Not sure about that.

What feelings should I (or the gunship crew) have when I see a video on Youtube where a gunship kills some Afghans in the process of laying an IED?

All killing is not equal.

Is killing an enemy in war the same as that of a drive-by shooting? The killings perpetrated by a deranged serial killer?

So if soldiers select another word for killing -destroy/annihilate/dispatch/eradicate/erase/neutralize/obliterate/slay/waste/wipe out/zap - it has more to do with differentiating the act of killing which they get involved on with that of criminal murderers than mask their own actions. Of course much of the motivation behind the replacement words chosen for killing has no subliminal psychological basis at all.

[motorfirebox]

In Chapter 2 he states:



The ideal response?

Not sure about that.

What feelings should I (or the gunship crew) have when I see a video on Youtube where a gunship kills some Afghans in the process of laying an IED?

All killing is not equal.

Is killing an enemy in war the same as that of a drive-by shooting? The killings perpetrated by a deranged serial killer?

So if soldiers select another word for killing -destroy/annihilate/dispatch/eradicate/erase/neutralize/obliterate/slay/waste/wipe out/zap - it has more to do with differentiating the act of killing which they get involved on with that of criminal murderers than mask their own actions. Of course much of the motivation behind the replacement words chosen for killing has no subliminal psychological basis at all.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like an ideal response at all. I mean, ideal for whom? The soldier, who is likely to either get himself killed out on the battlefield because he's distracted by all that sadness and respect, or have serious issues back home when the weight of all that sadness and respect comes down on him? The nation employing the soldier, who has to deal with a bunch more dead and damaged soldiers? Seems like the only party for whom that would be an ideal response is the guys the soldier is shooting at.

I get that what's supposed to happen is that the soldier's trigger finger will be more discerning if he empathizes with everyone he shoots at, but emotion as a mechanism for shoot/don't shoot differentiation seems like a terrible idea from the ground up.

[JMA]

Yeah, that doesn't seem like an ideal response at all. I mean, ideal for whom? The soldier, who is likely to either get himself killed out on the battlefield because he's distracted by all that sadness and respect, or have serious issues back home when the weight of all that sadness and respect comes down on him? The nation employing the soldier, who has to deal with a bunch more dead and damaged soldiers? Seems like the only party for whom that would be an ideal response is the guys the soldier is shooting at.

I get that what's supposed to happen is that the soldier's trigger finger will be more discerning if he empathizes with everyone he shoots at, but emotion as a mechanism for shoot/don't shoot differentiation seems like a terrible idea from the ground up.

There is a problem here which may have infected the US military (and maybe other militaries as well).

I note with horror that US junior officers themselves (as opposed reading lists imposed on them) list 'On Killing, by Dave Grossman' as number 7 on their own reading list. ( What do Army junior officers actually recommend reading?: Their own top 10 )

Someone needs to carry out some serious damage control right now as these young officers heads are being filled with nonsense.

I would like to learn more about Marlantes and his post Vietnam descent into a world of 'sex, drugs and rock and roll'. There are hundreds of thousands of soldiers (probably millions) over time - say since the Great War - who experienced more violent combat than him who did not fall apart.

Grossman and the like tell soldiers that they will suffer remorse (or worse) after having killed. (He does accept that for some/many/whatever this post killing phase may be fleeting - so fleeting that I must have missed it)

So if you don't have nightmares/have visions of the person you killed/suffer from depression/seek solace in drink and drugs/ etc etc then maybe you have a more serious problem.

This crap has to stop.

Surely there are enough US servicemen who have experienced combat and have not entered a self destructive spiral who can report that they did their duty and are still A-OK? Why is it always those who have issues who get interviewed and have their experiences included in case studies?

I contend that for the vast majority of soldiers the combat experience makes them stronger people.

It is also fair to say that at the war's end the infantry soldier who played his full part emerged strengthened and enlivened by the experience of battle. Above all, he knew the true meaning and true value of comradeship. Fostered by unity of purpose, the team spirit of the New Zealand battalions was a force of great power, rarely encountered in other walks of life. The sense of comradeship and mutual reliance was new in degree to those who found themselves in the team, and in itself was enough to submerge much of the uncertainty and unpleasantness of war. – New Zealand Infantry In Battle In World War II

[ganulv]

Why is it always those who have issues who get interviewed and have their experiences included in case studies?

You’re not the first person to have asked some form of that question.

[carl]

JMA & Motorfirebox: When Marlantes made his statement:

"The ideal response to killing in war should be one similar to a mercy killing, sadness mingled with respect."

Didn't that refer to how he felt the thing as a whole should be viewed decades, maybe many decades later? I don't have a copy to refer to (the library copy isn't back yet) so I may have the context wrong but what I remember is something more along the lines of being proud of professional accomplishment but a bit sad that the accomplishment involved killing a lot of people, NVA soldiers, who may not have had much choice about being there. Again I remember him saying that after decades of reflection, this is how he felt he should best view it.

That he came to that after so much time implies that Marlantes, the old man came to the conclusion that that is how old men should best view it. But what worked good for Marlantes long after the fighting stopped. For others who knows?

That viewpoint would not be so workable for soldiers during and in the immediate aftermath of fight I imagine. I read once of a B-26 crew that caught a Chinese unit in the open in the daylight and killed over 1,000, that one crew. Feeling anything but pride and happiness that those dead Chinese weren't around to kill G.I.s would have been a handicap to future missions.

I am not sure his descent into sex, drugs and rock and roll isn't anything more than a young man leaving a highly regimented world and entering the US of the late 60s and 70s (I forgot if he partied in Europe too). Sex, drugs and rock and roll was a way of life easily engaged in by a lot of people in those days. Maybe it had something to do with his combat experience but maybe it had just as much to do with being a young man in a place where it was easy.

I always thought Grossman was dead wrong too. He always talked about humans instead of culture and I never remembered reading anything about the Mongols being troubled by angst. The comments section in the Best Defense junior officer preferred reads list cited by JMA tore Grossman apart.

Not all of the writing is about guys who have problems. Most maybe because problems are inherently more dramatic than people who are well adjusted. But not all. Bob Greene wrote a very good book called "Duty" (I think). It was about his father and also about Paul Tibbets whom Greene got to know very well. IIRC Tibbets had no guilt, was proud of his unit and its accomplishment and knew that dropping the bomb ended the war sooner thereby saving many.

[JMA]

JMA & Motorfirebox: When Marlantes made his statement:

"The ideal response to killing in war should be one similar to a mercy killing, sadness mingled with respect."

Didn't that refer to how he felt the thing as a whole should be viewed decades, maybe many decades later? I don't have a copy to refer to (the library copy isn't back yet) so I may have the context wrong but what I remember is something more along the lines of being proud of professional accomplishment but a bit sad that the accomplishment involved killing a lot of people, NVA soldiers, who may not have had much choice about being there. Again I remember him saying that after decades of reflection, this is how he felt he should best view it.

That he came to that after so much time implies that Marlantes, the old man came to the conclusion that that is how old men should best view it. But what worked good for Marlantes long after the fighting stopped. For others who knows?

I reread the chapter just to be sure I didn't miss something.

Yes the book comprises Marlantes' reflections looking back some 40 years.

At the end of the chapter he sums it up like this:

We cannot expect normal eighteen year olds to kill someone and contain it in a healthy way. They must be helped to sort out what will be healthy grief about taking a life because it is part of the sorrow of war.

You see here we go in the direction of Grossman in the thinking that killing is somehow 'bad' and will inevitably lead to feelings of guilt and grief.

Not so. Combat killing in war is not murder, it is not a homicide, it is a justifiable killing. (I'm not talking atrocities here)

I am involved with a compilation of narratives written by individuals who served in my regiment during my little war. If there is grief it is over their mates who were KIA. Here is some 'raw data' from one account:

... Literally the minute we hit the ground the $hit hit the fan. All hell broke loose and a long and fierce fire fight took place. I experienced just about everything a soldier could expect to face in a lifetime in the army. There were airstrikes that nearly hit us, a terrorist threw and hit me with an empty AK magazine, two of my friends Kevin and Kim were seriously injured and flown out, and I had my first kill. I have never forgotten that moment….18 years old and I took another human beings life. Raised as a Catholic this had a severe impact on me. The worst was to come. At the end of the day we had to retrace our movements and collect all the bodies and drag them to a pick up point. The sight of the fatal injuries were horrific, limbs shattered, huge holes everywhere, exposed internal organs and brains oozing and falling adrift from the bodies. The yellow fat, the flies and the stench of death was gut retching. No training could have prepared me for this... "

Did this kid fall apart then or later? No, like the vast majority of others who went through that mill he just got on with his life.

That viewpoint would not be so workable for soldiers during and in the immediate aftermath of fight I imagine. I read once of a B-26 crew that caught a Chinese unit in the open in the daylight and killed over 1,000, that one crew. Feeling anything but pride and happiness that those dead Chinese weren't around to kill G.I.s would have been a handicap to future missions.

Exactly. If you have heard the 'Green Leader' audio from a camp attack against ZIPRA in Zambia (nah... not a refugee camp) one can hear from the cockpit transmissions this euphoria you speak of.

I am not sure his descent into sex, drugs and rock and roll isn't anything more than a young man leaving a highly regimented world and entering the US of the late 60s and 70s (I forgot if he partied in Europe too). Sex, drugs and rock and roll was a way of life easily engaged in by a lot of people in those days. Maybe it had something to do with his combat experience but maybe it had just as much to do with being a young man in a place where it was easy.

Well maybe I oversimplify his experience by using 'sex, drugs and rock and roll'. He claims to have has visions of the face of an NVA who threw a grenade at him and who he mat or may not have killed. I don't for one minute doubt his account but I do have my concerns of his mental state if that is all it took to tip him over the edge.

Perhaps for this and other reasons your man, Ken White, has stated often here that there should be some sort of psychological screening of all soldiers attempting to enter the service. (maybe he can clarify)

My experience is that those who had issues had them already when they entered the service. Combat had little to do with their later problems although 'the war' was a convenient excuse to hide behind.

I always thought Grossman was dead wrong too. He always talked about humans instead of culture and I never remembered reading anything about the Mongols being troubled by angst. The comments section in the Best Defense junior officer preferred reads list cited by JMA tore Grossman apart.

Not in the comment I read:

7. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman
Pete Kilner: This book opened my eyes to the psychological, physical and even moral impacts of killing another human being. As professionals of arms, we recruit, equip, train and order our Soldiers to kill. On Killing gave me a much deeper appreciation for what it’s like to kill, as well as how I can help my Soldiers prepare for and make sense of killing in war.
C.J. Douglas: I read this book with my company leadership— officers and SNCOs [senior non-commissioned officers]— prior to deploying to Iraq each time. It served as a discussion primer for the company to talk about the human factors in combat.

So please guide me to the critical comment.

What is sad is that they need to work off Grossman as a base. There should be something better available for use.

Not all of the writing is about guys who have problems. Most maybe because problems are inherently more dramatic than people who are well adjusted. But not all. Bob Greene wrote a very good book called "Duty" (I think). It was about his father and also about Paul Tibbets whom Greene got to know very well. IIRC Tibbets had no guilt, was proud of his unit and its accomplishment and knew that dropping the bomb ended the war sooner thereby saving many.

Yes but... I'll bet the book 'Black Hearts: One platoon's descent into madness in Iraq's triangle of death' will sell more copies than that book about normal, well adjusted soldiers (read boring) as opposed to a bunch of head-jobs.

[davidbfpo]

This headline nearly put me off even reading this BBC report, it has some "gems":

Prof Jones said a study undertaken in January and February 2010, found that around 70% of troops reported high levels of unit cohesion, and this was associated with having better mental health.

The report also found that the increased risks encountered in forward operating bases and patrol bases in Afghanistan were off-set by morale and esprit de corps. Yet, psychological problems and severe stress are not unavoidable, especially for those who have been on multiple tours to the region.

The charity Combat Stress say that rates of post traumatic stress disorder in personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are around 4%.

The King's College London study says this increases to 7% for UK frontline troops in Afghanistan. US forces experience higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder - 13% - due to longer tours of duty, and the use of reservists of a younger age.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16973421

[carl]

You see here we go in the direction of Grossman in the thinking that killing is somehow 'bad' and will inevitably lead to feelings of guilt and grief. .

Not so. Combat killing in war is not murder, it is not a homicide, it is a justifiable killing. (I'm not talking atrocities here).

Agreed. Perhaps Marlantes is mixing up what would be normal from a civilian peacetime standpoint and what would work in that situation, with what is in the best intests of the man in wartime and what would work in the that situation. The object of "what would work" is to help the man function normally in the months and years to come. Since the situations are so different, what would work would be different too.

Marlantes suggestion should be born in mind though, for if it proved useful to him, it may be proved useful to others. Another tool to be used if needed so to speak.

He claims to have has visions of the face of an NVA who threw a grenade at him and who he mat or may not have killed..

The father of a freind was a 20mm Oerlikon gunner on a ship in the Pacific in WWII. A natural born gunner like the man said in Twelvo O'Clock High. They were under Japanese air attack and Japanese plane flew by his gun very very close heading for a nearby ship. My freind's father swung the gun to kill the pilot, did so and splashed the plane immediately. The plane was close enought to see the pilot clearly and he always felt bad about what he did, not about splashing the plane, but about aiming for the pilot instead of the engine. It didn't matter that the quickest and surest way to down the plane was to get the pilot. He still felt bad.

So I believe that Marlantes sees that and maybe his way of looking at the thing would have helped that one particular Oerlikon gunner, then or later on.

So please guide me to the critical comment..

I didn't read the Company Commander comment. The first 4 comments to the Best Defense blog post itself tear Grossman apart. Sorry for the confused wording on my part.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...eir_own_top_10

Yes but... I'll bet the book 'Black Hearts: One platoon's descent into madness in Iraq's triangle of death' will sell more copies than that book about normal, well adjusted soldiers (read boring) as opposed to a bunch of head-jobs.

True, Black Hearts may sell more. But a good thing to take from that as far as junior leaders reading it may be that they will learn more per page from a narritive of failures.

If you ever get a chance to read Duty, I would be interested in what you think. It is more about a son relating to his dead father though.