[FONT="]Brinktk and 42rm- First of all, thanks for continuing to share these personal experiences. It helps me really understand what it is you experienced, and how you internalized the whole process. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] I have read over your responses carefully and I feel certain themes are coming through. Can I suggest them to see what you both think?
[/FONT]
[FONT="]First off, I think there is a general consensus that Grossman is right in that the action of engaging the enemy comes from a trained reflex, something the military has become very good at since WWII. It is not until after the event that you can think about what occurred. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I think it seems to be an agreement that SLA Marshall was right when he saw this ‘lack of conditioning’ during the Second World War (people were simply not firing at the enemy). The Military paid attention and altered their training rapidly. What I would argue is that this lack of firing during WWII is based on two things: Lack of training (a lot of green soldiers coming in often, fear of the unknown of battle, first time shooting or being shot at, fear of being killed and did not know the soldiers around them etc) and perhaps a lack of identification as a solider (it was mostly conscription in the regular infantry). Of course Marshall and Grossman would say this lack of firing is because they did not want to kill the enemy, because it’s an instinct not to; a type of deep-seated phobia. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I have read reports that say the reason firing rates increased so much in Vietnam etc was that the US trained their troops to ‘pray and spray’ and conditioned them well. The accuracy went down massively, but everyone was firing. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]As you both suggest, it is this warrior identity that made/helped you kill the enemy. You were protecting the guys around you, protecting yourself, and saw the enemy as a threat. It was also mentioned that performing how you were expected was a way to stay within your unit and remain as one of the guys.
From both your responses, and from what Grossman states, killing seems to make you feel: Great/euphoric that you survived, and they did not kill you before you killed them - anger at them for trying to kill you. And finally, you begin to question why you don't feel remorse for what you did? It seems you wondered if you should feel guilty, or embarrassed, or sad, as opposed to actually feeling that way. Though as Brinktk mentioned, he felt sadness at doing something he could not take back. And as 42rm said, he felt sorry for them, because they were dying foolishly. You wonder if you SHOULD feel bad, but you don't. Would you perhaps describe this conflict as a struggle between what you were told normal people feel about killing and what the military train you to do? There seems to be a strain between what you think you should feel and what you actually felt? [/FONT]
[FONT="]
Also there seems to be a strong identity with your unit, the concern that if you don't do your job they will die, or you will be ejected from the group that you are a part of. Would you say that it meant a lot to you, as an individual, to be a part of your own unit (a marine, a para etc) and you would do what it took to protect that?[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Would it then be like this: Within your unit, it is acceptable to kill, the rules change, you are a warrior, that is what you are meant to do, there is no guilt, or shame attached to this. Whereas within society, where you spent your whole life before and after the military, the opposite is true. So as an individual, as a person you feel like killing is wrong, but as a soldier, it was right, and expected. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I am trying to show that Grossman’s theories might need to be carefully considered when being applied to a modern professional military. In short, people seek out the position as an infantry soldier, because that’s what they want to be, and whom they want to be known as. It is voluntary, and I wonder if killing the enemy is something you accept you may have to do one day, and are willing to do it for your set of beliefs? Otherwise, would one not chose a position that was not infantry based?[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]M551 Sheridan- the effect of seeing your own killed has been looked at quite carefully by Grossman. It is perfectly natural to feel overjoyed at not being killed, and then later to realize that they have been killed, and you were happy it was not you. I am trying to remain focused on my study by not going down that road. It is certainly a unique and interesting topic, and further goes to show how brutal the effects of war are on an individual.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]It further shows me how much we ask our soldiers to go through, and angers me all the more when we turn around and treat them poorly. The public needs a lot more education on these sacrifices. [/FONT]