Help with PhD-A soldiers identity.

[tinomartino]

M551sheridan- Thanks very much. I will pm it to you as soon as its complete.

Does anyone know any military staff that provided combat training? I would not mind asking them what their views are on: If they know/think about identity when training soldiers. Things like group cohesion, how they view themselves, whats acceptable, and reinforcement of these identity traits e.g. (A soldier, a warrior, a family man, a Brit/American a patriot, a force for justice)

 

[brinktk]

I'd be willing to review your stuff.

I haven't commented on this forum yet because I wanted to see your motivations vetted by the community first...I see that you are genuinely interested in this very real, if, taboo subject that most are unwilling to undertake. If you have any questions for me feel free to ask, I'll try to be as objective as I can be when discussing this highly personal subject.

 

[tinomartino]

Hi brinktk- Thanks for replying. I am glad you could see that I am genuinely interested. It really started from my grandfather who refused to talk about his experiences until one day, when I was 20 (and he felt I was ready) he told me what it was like for him. This one event really started a deep fascination and desire to help understand this subject further, and hopefully make a difference one day. I appreciate any comments you have to help me. I am working on the proposal to my supervisor now, and will happily send you a copy if you wish to add your thougthts? Or if you like, you can stick to the questionnaire?

 

[brinktk]

You can send both, I don't mind spending a bit of time looking over what you've come up with so far.

 

[42RM]

Two interesting points I wanted to bring up are his arguments on Snipers and Psychopaths. He claims that killing the enemy through the means of technology and distance helps dampen this resistance to killing because its almost not real, a dehumanizing effect. He uses Snipers an example. I find this to be one of his biggest blunders, Because from what I have read about a Snipers duty they have to (at times) be able to watch individuals for great lengths at a time. During this time they can kiss kids goodbye, go to bathroom, eat, see friends and do all those things that make them 'human', thus they are not dehumanized at all. Also, to have a view of someones face that close up and watch their head blow up when shooting them cannot be for the faint of heart.

He´s indeed correct in his observations. It´s known as the physical and mechanical distance.

It´s much more difficult to kill someone when you can feel his breath and see the fear in his eyes. It´s very traumatic at such close range. At long range, like an artilleryman firing at the target that is over a couple hills, he does not see the enemy and can more easily deny the enemy´s humanity.

Mechanical distance is viewing the enemy through some device like a scope or on a screen. It allows the killer to dehumanize the target. Personally, I experience the use of night sights made the war seem more like a Nintendo game. Snipers see their target through a scope and this can make the enemy less human to the shooter.

Try this little experiment on yourself.

Get a friend or colleague into a garden and ask him to water the flowers, for example. Stand a few feet from him and just observe. What do you see? You see a human being who does peaceful things like watering the flowers.

Now, ask the person to repeat what he did but this time you have to be in hiding and through the telescopic sights on a rifel observe him. How do you perceive him now?

I think you should try it. I´ve done it with school pupils and they were really shocked with the answer some of them gave.

Secondly, his notion that Psychopaths don't really thrive in the military, because the environment is not really good for them and they will soon be flushed out. But instead this 2% who do most of the killing of the enemy are actually a type of empathic killer. A sheep dog that is different from the sheep (normal every day people) and wolves (the psychopath) who will have no qualms killing, but will only kill those he perceives to be bad etc. I love to know what you guys think of this based on experiences? He is quite contradictory with this to be honest.

There can be many forms and levels of psychopathy. Psychopaths are not limited to seemingly nice gentlemen who invite you over for dinner, then cut you into pieces and serve your fresh innards on a plate.

Not all psychopaths are born to it. Some are made. A soldier is in principle a "controlled psychopath" in the sense that he can be temporarily induced into what we call "functional psychopathy". A "on-demand psychopath" if you want.

 

[NP8901]

Does anyone know any military staff that provided combat training? I would not mind asking them what their views are on:........

Yes, but that´s not how our world works. You have to go through MOD.

If they know/think about identity when training soldiers. Things like group cohesion, how they view themselves, whats acceptable, and reinforcement of these identity traits e.g. (A soldier, a warrior, a family man, a Brit/American a patriot, a force for justice)

To a great extent. We don´t just establish a military unit, we create a clan or tribe and it is the cohesion that makes us fight. You can say that we are fighting for the tribe´s survival.

As a comment to 42RM´s post, I would say that there are many more ways to distance yourself from the enemy. In addition to the mechanical and physical distance there is a cultural, moral, religious, social and perception distance and above all authority and group pressure.

 

[tinomartino]

42RM- I understood his argument for the mechanical and physical distance, but I am glad you gave me your personal experiences and thoughts on the matter. I will try this and see what I feel. It is interesting, some biographies I read by snipers described a type difficulty in their first kill, as well as a realization of what they were doing. But as you said, there were others who saw it like a computer game. Based on this then, would you say there is a resistence to killing? And that we need things like distance (emotional, ethnic, mechanical, religious) to force ourselves to kill?

NP9801- Thanks for the additional comments, it is quite well studied in Psychology this utilization of dehumanizing and distance techniques such as you described (calling someone a rag head, gook etc) as well as the group pressure and social pressure from authority.

Do you both feel then, that IF there is a resistance it is what i suggest, an identity thing? (influenced by culture and society, taking into account warrior tribes and as mentioned, warrior cultures like Marines etc) or as Grossman said, a biological innate Freudian resistance?

Thanks again.

 

[tinomartino]

Just another thought, it so strange it did not occur to me to actually try out the sniper idea as suggested by you 42RM. I guess I told myself I could never replicate what its like to be on the field of battle (explosions, people with guns who want to kill me, team of people relying on me etc). I guess sometimes in academia we are so caught up in what we are and are not allowed to do and talk about in our research, that we forget to do it out of curiosity. Regardless if it will get published or not. Really opened my eyes that one

 

[brinktk]

If you're conscience you're about to literally kill someone, and it's your first time killing someone, then you will likely have misgivings whether you're a sniper or not. The reason it is so pronounced in snipers is they generally have an oppurtunity to observe their targets long before they kill them. Regular soldiers on the other hand, rarely encounter this. Most of the enemy that regualr soldiers see is when contact has already been initiated and all one is seeing is just blurs or glints for fractions of seconds at a time. If one comes into contact with the enemy it's about a second before one of them is dead....it's all training at that point. You're not even really thinking you're just doing exactly like you've trained and it's all a reflex. Not really a lot of time to reflect on the matter...until afterward when in the solace of ones own hole, and you can collect your thoughts for a second...then you think about it. I can't speak for anyone else, the thoughts I had were mixed. I was elated that I could do it, that I didn't freeze up, that I was alive. At the same time I was angry because they were trying to kill me, my friends...rage even, that they would have the audacity to do such a thing. Then a little sadness knowing I had just done something that could never be taken back, I had taken another humans life...I felt like I should be mournful of it or something...but I wasn't, it's weird and hard to explain. Everything I had ever seen on TV or read about told me there should have been some great epiphany or something...the only thing I realized is what a waste it was. I don't know, perhaps I'm still trying to process it all.

As stated it is almost a tribe. Being a part of a unit is probably the biggest reason wounded soldiers refuse evacuation, fight so desperately when the chips are down, or jump on grenades when they are thrown among buddies. They become your family, closer than family. You are able to tell them things you could never tell your real family. You know that no matter what, they would die for you, and you for them. No ifs, ands, or buts...no questions...no problems, you just know you'd do it. Furthermore you're a clan or tribe of warriors. You can talk and do the the things warriors do. You go over better ways to be "effective" which essentially is better ways to kill. Better ways to survive, better ways to surprise the enemy, better ways to change up the tactics...while you're over there that is your world. It's the only world...the only one that matters anyways, and you're all in it together. You need these people to live, they need you to live. I hope I haven't confused you...lol...I kind of get on tangents every now and again.

 

[tinomartino]

brinktk- I really appreciate you sharing your story. I can't imagine what that must be like to go through, but I am glad there are people like you out there willing to do that, so people like me can complain about stupid things like PhD's and think its actually the end of the world.
I appreciate the tangents and rants, they all help me understand from your perspectives.

The description you jut gave sounds a lot like what Grossman records.... going on instinct to do what your trained to do, Joy of being alive, anger at them trying to kill you and sadness for what had occurred.

Two points if I may: You suggest that Snipers would perhaps have misgivings because of how human they see an individual, how they have time to do what they need to do, and its not all in a blind moment of panic- kill or be killed.

Do you then feel that snipers are aided by the distance (mechanical and physical) or that they in fact have a tougher job because of what you have said above?

Based on what you have described, do you feel that there is this resistance to killing like Grossman suggests? If so, do you feel this resistence is based on an unconscious knowledge, a type of biological mechanism that you are all part of the same species like Grossman suggests?

On the other hand, you give a nice insight into the 'closer then family' bond that you felt with your unit, and how this unit, it was acceptable to be warriors, because that was your identity. Do you feel this identity is what helped you do what had to be done?

Thanks again for sharing that with me. If at any time my questions are to abrupt or brash, please let me know.

 

[brinktk]

I think Grossman is right in that you will fall back on the lowest level of training that you know. When you have drilled something to the point of it being muscle memory, then that is exactly what you're going to do when the moment of truth arrives. You will likely consistently hear that "training takes over" and I believe that this is precisely what happens.

Part of the sniper question I think is the fact that most people are told their entire lives that killing is bad. It's a foriegn concept that no amount of training can truly prepare a soldier for because as much as we try to "train as we fight", there is only so much that training can simulate. I'm not sure if Grossman or Freud are correct on whether it comes from an innate instinct within a large proportion of the population or a conditioned instinct learned over time. Perhaps it's both. Killing is certainly not natural and in combat, the circumstances in which killing occurs are even less natural.

I would argue that the urge to not let down your fellow soldiers by failing to kill is just as intense as the "natural" urge to not kill. Before every soldier goes into their baptism of fire I think one of the biggest concerns for a soldier is how they will react. Will they perform as their training taught them and their teamates require them to? The big uncertainty of it all loomed large in my mind while I was riding in an armored fighting vehicle during the invasion of Iraq. I know I didn't want to let down my buddies. It's almost an unwritten contract, if I fullfill the obligation of doing my job i.e. killing, taking the necessary risks, following orders etc. I will be allowed to remain a part of this team. I will be afforded the protection and the loyalty of the group. If I refuse to fullfill this obligation, I will be caste out.

At the same time, combat over extended periods of time allow for more harsh percerptions to set in. Frustration and dehuminization are certainly aspects to take into consideration when it comes to ease of killing. For instance, the advent of the roadside bomb or carbomb is a terrifying prospect because they are so hard to spot and so lethal. Over an extended period of time and after taking casualties from these types of attacks the sympathies for the humanity of ones enemy quickly diminish. Fear compiled with growing frustration and even hate compound over time to create a type of blood lust to catch one of these guys in the act so we can kill them. So we can hit back, do damage...get revenge. I would tell my soldiers that sometimes a gun battle is invigorating. It acts as a pressure release after months of taking the hits with noone to hit back at, you get into a gun battle and you can inflict the pain on the enemy that they have inflicted on you. Whether or not you're killing the enemy or just shooting in their direction, it gives a phsychological release that one is "getting their licks in". Perhaps it's a chivalric concept about having a fair fight, that if I am killed I don't want to die from a faceless enemy but from a warrior teeing off with me blow for blow. I don't know. I do know that it's a very primal instinct I've never felt in any other part of my life. It's exhilerating, terrifying, confusing, and suprememly intense all at the same time.

I think snipers jobs are harder and easier at the same time lol. The fact that they can observe, sometimes for hours or days their prey and then kill them is not an easy concept to digest. It takes an incredibly patient and stable individual to be an effective sniper. There are numerous factors that come into play that will effect the mind of a sniper as he pulls the trigger. Distance and optics certainly help, but I think belief in the mission and a sense that they're really shaping the battlefield for the grunts or operation they're supporting play just as an important role. Yet, the fear for them isn't as pronounced a majority of the time as it is for the grunts about to enter a room they know the enemy occupies. Certainly it's present because they often operate in enemy territory, and it is doubly felt if they are compromised by the enemy...But, in a big battle, that soldier going into a face to face fight with an armed and determined enemy is quite a daunting thing to imagine. The fear is a huge factor in this instance, close in fighting is messy and just bloody dangerous. Your heart is beating so hard that you believe the enemy can hear it, killing up close and personal is just terrifying and when it's over there is an overwhelming sense of relief.

I gotta go but I think this will cover your questions for now.

 

[m551sheridan]

Most of the enemy that regualr soldiers see is when contact has already been initiated and all one is seeing is just blurs or glints for fractions of seconds at a time. If one comes into contact with the enemy it's about a second before one of them is dead....it's all training at that point.

You're not even really thinking you're just doing exactly like you've trained and it's all a reflex. Not really a lot of time to reflect on the matter...until afterward when in the solace of ones own hole, and you can collect your thoughts for a second...then you think about it.

I can't speak for anyone else, the thoughts I had were mixed. I was elated that I could do it, that I didn't freeze up, that I was alive. At the same time I was angry because they were trying to kill me, my friends...rage even, that they would have the audacity to do such a thing.

Then a little sadness knowing I had just done something that could never be taken back, I had taken another humans life...I felt like I should be mournful of it or something...but I wasn't, it's weird and hard to explain.

Everything I had ever seen on TV or read about told me there should have been some great epiphany or something...the only thing I realized is what a waste it was. I don't know, perhaps I'm still trying to process it all.

As stated it is almost a tribe. Being a part of a unit is probably the biggest reason wounded soldiers refuse evacuation, fight so desperately when the chips are down, or jump on grenades when they are thrown among buddies. They become your family, closer than family.

You are able to tell them things you could never tell your real family. You know that no matter what, they would die for you, and you for them. No ifs, ands, or buts...no questions...no problems, you just know you'd do it.

Furthermore you're a clan or tribe of warriors.

You can talk and do the the things warriors do. You go over better ways to be "effective" which essentially is better ways to kill. Better ways to survive, better ways to surprise the enemy,

while you're over there that is your world. It's the only world...the only one that matters anyways, and you're all in it together.

You need these people to live, they need you to live.

you put it well......... like you said, hard to explain if the experience is not a shared one... and it doesn't matter which conflict you may have been in, mine was in 1970 -- felt the same way as you described -- ya did good.

 

[tinomartino]

brinktk- There is a lot for me to digest here, but I can say this insight has been invaluable. Thanks for sharing, and I hope to hear from you soon. I will no doubt post some questions later when I have articulated a response.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Just another thought, it so strange it did not occur to me to actually try out the sniper idea as suggested by you 42RM. I guess I told myself I could never replicate what its like to be on the field of battle (explosions, people with guns who want to kill me, team of people relying on me etc). I guess sometimes in academia we are so caught up in what we are and are not allowed to do and talk about in our research, that we forget to do it out of curiosity. Regardless if it will get published or not. Really opened my eyes that one

When you have your PhD you will have more freedom to do things. If you are working at a university as a scientist and other scientists knew who you are. That will open some closed doors

 

[42RM]

42RM- I understood his argument for the mechanical and physical distance, but I am glad you gave me your personal experiences and thoughts on the matter. I will try this and see what I feel. It is interesting, some biographies I read by snipers described a type difficulty in their first kill, as well as a realization of what they were doing. But as you said, there were others who saw it like a computer game. Based on this then, would you say there is a resistence to killing? And that we need things like distance (emotional, ethnic, mechanical, religious) to force ourselves to kill?

NP9801- Thanks for the additional comments, it is quite well studied in Psychology this utilization of dehumanizing and distance techniques such as you described (calling someone a rag head, gook etc) as well as the group pressure and social pressure from authority.

Do you both feel then, that IF there is a resistance it is what i suggest, an identity thing? (influenced by culture and society, taking into account warrior tribes and as mentioned, warrior cultures like Marines etc) or as Grossman said, a biological innate Freudian resistance?

Thanks again.

I don´t think that we are genetically coded with a reluctance to kill other humans and if you look at man´s history up to through the ages, there is probably more in favor of this theory than against. Conversely, there are some historical facts that speak against this theory. I believe that one must assess the killing in relation to the current norms and the historical context we live in now. If we had lived in ancient Britain, then in my opinion, there´s no doubt that the old guys would consider such theories as nonsense completely unfounded and you would be sacrificed to the gods faster than you would notice. I believe that we are "socially and morally coded" from our contemporary way of life and I believe that we are able to kill other conspecifics without major consequences for the killer if the right conditions are present. Modern man does not live with death as something natural anymore. I believe killing is latent stored and it can be recalled.

I don´t believe that there is an rulebook or a definitive truth about killing. When we talk about human psyche, the result will always be blurred, but most people can be trained to kill. Whether we need distance or not, is in my eyes more a way to justify to yourself the kill you have committed more than it is to force yourself to kill. For me personally, it´s definitely about identity as a warrior. When you are out there in the ****, there´s only you and your "clan or tribe" and the fight. This is your reality, your life and to kill is the clans purpose. - I hope that this mindset makes sense.

I have reflected on how I experienced my first kill.

I remember that it was fast and it was on reflex more than it was deliberate. Approximately 10-15 yards in front of me a Taliban warrior erupts from the cornfield and in that split second I threw my rifle to the shoulder and fired three rounds and he went down.

After the area was secured, I was so high on adrenalin that I remember that I kicked the corpse and shouted "die your bloody bastard!" Then I became a bit quiet until my Sergeant came up to me, slapped me on the shoulder and said ****ing good hit Boss. Most of the day I felt as if I had scored the decisive goal in champion´s league. Next day I was embarrassed by my behavior, but mostly embarrassed by the fact that I didn´t felt sorrow for having taken a life. I remember thinking, this is how it is? it´s just that?

Totally surreal.

 

[brinktk]

And that it is...it's just that.

Like I said, I thought there should have been some great moment of realization or something, but, there simply wasn't. We were taking MG and RPG fire from a palm grove near Karbala during the invasion. I was laying down a base of fire with the rest of my squad for our sister squad to move to a more favorable position. The Iraqi Army soldiers were not terribly far away, perhaps 75 to 100 meters. I saw movement and started firing into the area where I last saw it. I guess my fire was effective because I could see one of the soldiers start to get up and attempt to move back further into the palms...as he got up I aimed right for his mid section and saw him drop like a ton of bricks as I squeezed what must have been 10 rounds into him. I knew I hit him, no doubt in my mind, but, I simply went about continuing to fire until it was my turn to move forward. We cleared the palms and destroyed the weapons we found, went through the dead soldiers clothes for anything of intel value, then remounted our vehicles and continued pushing north. Probably my biggest problem was the lack of thought that went into it. I just did it, like some type of hunters instinct kicked in.

By the time my unit got into Baghdad the whole city seemed to be alive with Saddams soldiers, Fedayeen, Syrian mercenaries, and insurgents. We were literally fighting off hundreds of soldiers/insurgents. Even though the situation for a while was quite hairy, I began to feel sorry for them. Not because they were human...but because of how stupidly they died. They were brave for sure...but simply outmatched. I'm glad it went that way because that meant me and my fellow soldiers suffered less, at the same time myself and my fellow soldiers would sigh and grimace when these bus loads of fighters would pull up in plain view of us and just get mowed down as they tried to exit the vehicle. They fought dumb and they paid for it with their lives. No amount of bravery will save you if it is used stupidly.

Of course, that feeling changed throughout the course of the deployment and the enemy got smarter and more lethal. I'd be lying if I said there weren't a few times in the ensuing months where I cheered the deaths of the enemy and sought these fights out simply to vanquish them from this earth. A few friendly casualties and the entire perception of combat changes for a person. Not to mention being hot, exhausted, and hungry for months on end you begin to take a certain amount of pleasure in the misery of your enemy when you yourself are miserable. Killing certainly becomes easier...

 

[tinomartino]

I am sorry for the delay in my reply. There is a lot of stuff you guys have given me that I need to really understand before responding. Thanks so much for these stories, it was more then I could have hoped for. Expect a detailed reply shortly.

 

[tinomartino]

[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 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=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot]
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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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]

 

[42RM]

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?

We are all a product of our society and in our democracy you will be punished for killing other people like it´s, according to common morality, the worst thing you can do to a fellow human being. Since the Ten Commandments is one of the pillars of our society (Thou Shalt not kill) and since we all have compassionate impulses after 2000 years of Christian education, the merciful Jesus, and love for our fellow human beings, it´s probably the reason that I felt that I ought to have a problem with killing. That is why it is extremely important that as a practitioner of violence in the service of society, you are completely resolved with the idea that one day you might need to kill. Otherwise, you risk having problems, which may not be a problem when it comes to it. Personally I have reflected on every kill that I or my chaps have committed.

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?

"United we stand, divided we fall" If you don´t have a strong unity and identity, you can never win. This applies to soldiers, football players and companies also. And as an officer and leader, it is my task to strengthen and maintain this unity. I´m the "tribal chieftain" and must achieve 100% faithfulness from the lads. It´s me who ultimately determines who is lives and who dies both on the enemy side and also on our own. It´s a huge responsibility and it requires a strong unity. My dispositions might cost my own lads their lives and they know it, but our identity is so strong that they trust me.

Yes, for me it means a lot to be a Royal Marines Commando. I became an officer because I´m a leader and because I love working with people from all parts of society. To educate young people so that they will grow up to be a benefit and not a burden to our society is my goal. To me being an RM officer means choosing the hard right over the easy wrong and protecting my Marines, training them and leading them is a lifelong challenge I look forward to every day.

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.

It requires special circumstances before I take a human life and if there is an alternative solution to neutralize a threat, then it´s the one I chose.

I belive that unjustified killing is wrong. Imagine, if you will, the "right not to be killed" as a bubble that surrounds each person. Each of us possesses the right that no one else "violate our bubble" and harm us. By virtue of being human, every person possesses a bubble. This is consistent with our moral intuitions. When we are walking down the street, for example, it would be morally wrong to physically assault a person walking past us. We would be violating that person´s bubble. He possessed the fundamental human right not to be physically harmed.

Yet we also know that someone can forfeit that right—can "burst his own bubble." A right is a right as long as it does not violate the more fundamental right of another. Thus, we recognize that if a person intentionally violates (or threatens to violate) the bubble of another, he forfeits his own bubble.

It´s important to note that a just defender does not forfeit his rights when he attacks an unjust aggressor. When fighting in a just war, a soldier is a defender. Soldiers continue to possess their bubbles as long as they direct violence only at those who have already forfeited their right not to be killed. Enemy combatants are the ones who have "lost their bubbles" by threatening the rights of those who possess them—non-combatants and/or our soldiers. Even if they are not personally threatening anyone at the time we engage them, combatants for an unjust cause are still morally permissible targets because they are operating as part of a larger organism—the unjust threat.

Consistent with the rules of war, an aggressor´s forfeiture of rights is not permanent. The default setting for a human being is to possess the right not to be killed, so when a person is no longer a threat, he regains his right, his bubble. What constitutes a "threat"? A threat is someone who possesses both the intent and the capability to violate someone´s right not to be killed. As soon as a person no longer has the intent or the capability to violate the bubble of another, he regains his own bubble and should not be killed. This is why it is morally wrong to kill a detainee or an incapacitated insurgent.

I´ll be the first to acknowledge its shortcoming as a purely logical approach to an intensely emotional experience. Even soldiers who internalize this theory may still experience sadness, guilt, or shame after they kill in war. I doubt we would want it any other way; killing another human being is not something to be taken lightly. Maybe the best we can hope for is that good soldiers´ bad feelings will be tempered by the knowledge that they did nothing morally wrong.

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?

I wear a uniform and commit extreme violence for all people in the world who are not themselves able to do it. I do this so you, me and everyone else can live the life we want without fear. This is an obligation the soldier assumes. Just like your local police officer we serve and protect, I just do it globally. This is what we are here for - to act as a protective wall in front of those who can´t defend themselves.

I love the physical and mental challenge. I love the rugged nature. I love getting wet, tired, dirty, scared and I love the feeling of great joy when something is completed to my satisfaction. Yes, actually I love life so much that I am willing to put my life on the line so that you can live yours. It probably sounds like a cliché, but that´s how I feel and that´s what drives me.

 

[tinomartino]

42RM- Just a quick reply to say thank you for that message. That is exactly the type of information I have been looking for. You have confirmed everything I suspected, with details that went far beyond my expectations. I appreciate your honesty and the time taken to write these replies. I will write more when I am not at University interviewing participants.