Help with PhD-A soldiers identity.

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.

"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.

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 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.

42RM- From what you have described above, it seems as though overall you feel your moral upbringing and identity as a individual based on that upbringing tells you to kill is wrong. As you suggested, this is based on religious beliefs and general societal rules and norms based on religion (which as you suggested is very strong in our culture)

But as you further mentioned, when you join as a combat soldier, you must accept that despite this, you must be willing to kill. In the military, the norms change from the outside world. If you identify strongly with the military, and your unit (Royal Marines) you accept that it is morally acceptable to kill the enemy (if done legally as you said). You mentioned that soldiers may feel stressed, guilty etc from killing in combat. Do you feel that this guilt may come from their identity with the outside world, which as you mentioned suggests killing is wrong? Or do you feel this guilt and stress is based on the fact it is just not natural to kill? Why I ask is because you mentioned we are all a product of our society, suggesting you believe if any stress or guilt does come from the kill, it is based on that, as apposed to a biological thing?

It also sounds like you feel like your identity as a soldier and as an officer is something you sought out. Based on your desires to protect those who cant protect themselves, to do a job that you think others can't do.

Does this sound generally right based on what you mentioned above? I apologise if I have read any of this incorrectly or misunderstood.
 
I think that this soldiers/warrior identity is a very important factor in dealing with the idea of killing. I believe the stronger this identity, the easier it becomes to kill when killing is necessary.

Organizations like the Royal Marines, Paras, Rangers, Special Operations forces do a very good job of indoctrinating their forces into the warrior mindset. The intensity of training generally will weed out anyone who is even slightly mentally "weak". The amount of stress that is carefully applied throughout their training process is like an innoculation of the mind for the stesses of combat.

I am a regular soldier, not necessarily elite in any respect. But, I have identified myself as a soldier/warrior since long before I became one. I have always known AND accepted my role as a protector. I would venture to say that a lot of the resistance to killing would be more prominent within organizations where the indoctrination process is not as intense as the ones previously mentioned.

Professional military organizations can employ more stringent indoctrination processes because they are taking in "volunteers". There is a general saying within the military that the more levels in which you volunteer i.e. in my Army, volunteering first to simply join, then volunteer to become a paratrooper, then volunteer to attend Ranger school, etc the more efficient you will become on the battlefield. Within a conscripted military the "regular" forces may not have the vetting process necessary to bring their soldiers in mass to a point where they can identify themselves with a "warriors" mindset.

I can use the current US Army as an example of this process through our extremely high operations tempo we've had for the last 10+ years. Regular soldiers, having volunteered to join either before or during the current conflicts, have become very intimate with the tools necessary to become efficient at combat. The warriors, who may not have done the volunteering in the traditional sense where they try to reach more elite units or levels of training, instead volunteer to stay and deploy over and over again. Knowing the carnage and danger that is prevalent in the areas where they deploy 2, 3, 4, or more times and still staying in the fight regardless of the price they and their families must pay. I think this loyalty, feeling of making a difference, and belief in the mission makes it much easier to do the dirty work that is sometimes required in our profession. I believe that if there was an overwhelming resistance and guilt over killing that some speak of, the re-enlistment rate, within my military at least, would be much lower than it is. But, it's not, it's through the roof. Combat soldiers that are Sgt's or higher within my army generally have at least 2 combat tours under their belt. The higher in rank you go the more tours, generally, the soldiers have. I have very good friends that I came into the Army with that continue to serve and have racked up some ridiculous downrange time, all of it at the platoon level or lower. When in each others company we know what we're about...taking care of soldiers, and making things happen. The level of professionalism runs across the board. It is an institutional strength reinforced by over 10 years of war. Those absolutely crucial platoon sergeants and squad leaders have been tempered, tested, and proven in their trade and know exactly what it takes to be successful.

Now, I would say the difference in norms from the military to civilian side of things rear themselves in different ways. Those that stay within the military are surrounded by a deep seated culture that actively condones the traits that are necessary to be successful combat soldiers. When taken out of that environment, things quickly change. A successful combat soldier with a warriors mindset would likely come across as at the very least "intense" and at the worst "crazy" to a normal civilian. I can honestly say when I went to university I felt totally out of place and a bit alienated by the "dumb" civilians I was surrounded by. I had no time or tolerance for BS or half measures...I was full speed all the time. An approach that leaves many civilians befuddled who are not used to the frank and BS free ways of communication that is common in the warriors world. The approach I took, which in the Army was sought and praised, didn't gain me any friends among the civilans I dealt with. It's as if there is a massive gap between their and my realities. Over time I learned to tone it down, but still to this day, I find myself lacking much empathy for the seemingly "trivial" daily occurences of a normal civilan. We are simply living in two vastly different worlds with vastly different social norms speaking entirely different languages.

I think the transition is probably the hardest thing for a soldier to deal with. It doesn't even necessarily have to be the change in expectations from killing when necessary being condoned to absolutely not killing at all. More to the point I think it's the change in pace of things. As a combat soldier things move very fast and it seems all of your senses are at their limit. Colors are brighter, noises are louder, and bonds are strongest among comrades. When back in the civilian world, things are much slower and much less colorful. I guess you could say that after combat, nothing for the rest of your life will meet that "high". The sense of urgency and purpose when down range is amplified many times over. Consequences are paid for in blood for mistakes. No other thing you are doing or have ever done is more important than what you're doing that day, the day that's in front of you. Whereas in the civilian world, this is certainly not the case. Mistakes can be made and one can simply shrugg and go "oops". One can think of events far into the future because they have the luxury of knowing they can plan that far ahead with reasonable certainty. I don't talk about what I've done or seen while deployed to those outside the military because they have no context to compare it to. They are oblivious, and would likely apply their societal/social norms to any event I described to them from combat. Something that simply doesn't work because, as previously mentioned, they are diametrically different.
 
brinktk- I can understand your frustration of trying to explain something that civilians like myself will never really understand. I can also understand what you mean by living in what seems like different worlds, it must be especially annoying in regards to the half vs full speed thing. Although I am grateful people like me will never have to go to war (though I did spend over a year going through the application process, as this is something I wanted to do) at the same time, I feel like I am missing an experience that- as you defined -is more exhilarating and heightened then anything else. It would also put things into perspective, which I feel is another frustrating gap between civilians and military personnel that may never be bridged.

Your response has been excellent as a support for reasons people might not have this inbuilt resistance to killing (or if they do its not biological), you have also given me a fresh perspective by mentioning the people that sign up not just once more, but again and again. Something that did not occur to me before.

Thanks again.
More to come shortly if people are still willing. I am currently working on the questionnaires, now I have a methodological approach in mind.
 
brinktk- I can understand your frustration of trying to explain something that civilians like myself will never really understand. I can also understand what you mean by living in what seems like different worlds, it must be especially annoying in regards to the half vs full speed thing. Although I am grateful people like me will never have to go to war (though I did spend over a year going through the application process, as this is something I wanted to do) at the same time, I feel like I am missing an experience that- as you defined -is more exhilarating and heightened then anything else. It would also put things into perspective, which I feel is another frustrating gap between civilians and military personnel that may never be bridged.

Your response has been excellent as a support for reasons people might not have this inbuilt resistance to killing (or if they do its not biological), you have also given me a fresh perspective by mentioning the people that sign up not just once more, but again and again. Something that did not occur to me before.

Thanks again.
More to come shortly if people are still willing. I am currently working on the questionnaires, now I have a methodological approach in mind.


It can be tricky with the transition from the quantitative to the qualitative method; how are you approaching it without making a jump between them?
 
Last edited:
Hey 13brigpvsk- I am using them to compliment each other as appose to jumping from one to another. The qualitative will come first, the quantitative will be used as sort of like icing on the cake. Though still a critical component (the thesis would be incomplete without it) it would be my way of testing what the qualitative is telling us.

Thanks
 
42RM- From what you have described above, it seems as though overall you feel your moral upbringing and identity as a individual based on that upbringing tells you to kill is wrong. As you suggested, this is based on religious beliefs and general societal rules and norms based on religion (which as you suggested is very strong in our culture)
Exactly. I don´t believe that there is a genetically inherited resistance to killing. Every human being would do so if put in a situation where it is about basic survival. Your primate brain would simply take control and make sure you survive. This "built-in resistance" is in my opinion, the result of the upbringing and socialization that man over the centuries has undergone. If we consider the time before Christianity spread in Europe, it is not my impression that there was a genetic blockage. An aversion arises in many communities, but this is the general development of the clan and the formation of states. If someone killed members of your clan, it should be revenged and vendetta created disorder in the existing social structures and therefore it could only be approved in exceptional circumstances.

As societies became more and more civilisered, laws was created that regulated life, including who had the right to kill and under which circumstances. Gradually, these laws were so integrated in general community. You also established norms of civilized conduct and exercise of violence was centralized to the Crown and the practitioners that the state designated. These professionals was the soldier, the policeman and the hangman. For everyone else, it was against the law and you were penalized if you violated the law.

The introduction of conscription created disorder in this system. The state now expected that ordinary citizens after a brief military training were required to engage in violence in the service of the government. Ordinary citizens that all their lives had been told that killing was both morally wrong and illegal. This is the explanation, in my opinion, on the observations that some soldiers have found it difficult to kill without the proper embossing and not because of a genetic code - deep inside we are still "predators".

But as you further mentioned, when you join as a combat soldier, you must accept that despite this, you must be willing to kill. In the military, the norms change from the outside world. If you identify strongly with the military, and your unit (Royal Marines) you accept that it is morally acceptable to kill the enemy (if done legally as you said). You mentioned that soldiers may feel stressed, guilty etc from killing in combat. Do you feel that this guilt may come from their identity with the outside world, which as you mentioned suggests killing is wrong? Or do you feel this guilt and stress is based on the fact it is just not natural to kill? Why I ask is because you mentioned we are all a product of our society, suggesting you believe if any stress or guilt does come from the kill, it is based on that, as apposed to a biological thing?
To quote Epictetus "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters".

If your violent acts are accepted by our society and they are expressed in words and in actions then we have no rational reason to regret our actions and our society will accept these actions as necessary, or perhaps even appropriate. The vast majority of veterans have had feelings of guilt on either a low or high level. And so have I, but I´ve always decided that reactions will have to wait until there is time. I became more focused on the task which makes the next killing much easier.​

The problems of guilt is as old as war itself and it becomes even worse if the soldier don´t feel that society accepts what he has done on their behalf. If we don´t treat veterans with respect and gratitude, then we risk that society will pay dearly.​

When soldiers return home, the code you have lived with disappears and is replaced by the normal civilian morale and sense of conscience which sets strong limits on what is morally acceptable and under such circumstances, feelings of guilt may rapid emerge. It is important to emphasize that not everyone feels guilt. It depends very much on the context in which your actions unfold. In Hitler´s Germany many soldiers who had committed serious war crimes did not necessarily have any feelings of guilt because their actions were applauded by their society, culture and government. The opposite was true of the veterans that returned from the war in Vietnam. Instead of being hailed for their efforts they were met with scorn and contempt and although the Vietnam war had a very low number of Psychological combat injuries then the lack of acceptance by the American society caused that such injuries increased vigorously among the returning veterans. They felt severely burdened by feelings of guilt because their actions was standing in sharp contrast to society´s current values.​

It´s our society who sends young people to war. Then it is also our societies task to support and accept them when they come home.​

It also sounds like you feel like your identity as a soldier and as an officer is something you sought out. Based on your desires to protect those who cant protect themselves, to do a job that you think others can't do.
Yes - I have never been in doubt that this would be my mission in life. But that you to such an extent, with extremely powerful means, hold death and destruction in your hands is something you only understand when you have been there and done it and it takes a very high moral requirement. I am very aware of my and my Marines integrity. We don´t kill at all costs, but if the misionen have a reasonable purpose and if required, it´s what we do - job done!​

I will conclude with a response I got from one of the lads when I asked him: Do you often think of the fact that you have killed another human being after you have returned home? The answer: Yes, otherwise there would be something ****ing wrong with my head.​
 
Last edited:
It´s our society who sends young people to war. Then it is also our societies task to support and accept them when they come home.

Our community has two vets we've all reached out to after they came home, both of whom ended up being homeless because of what they were dealing with. Our efforts may have resulted in both of them having homes and many things to fill them with (the most recent had something like 5 toasters, 4 TVs, enough dishes to serve 100 people and even a car when all was said and done) but there is sometimes something else broken that the community can't even begin to approach. There is a Vietnam vet down the street from me who seems to have sentenced himself to a life of solitude, despite being lonely and having a love of people. He doesn't want to be alone but ultimately pushes everyone away. You can just see in his eyes how something is broken. Society (at least here) seems to be evolving in its willingness to accept and take care of its returning soldiers, but sadly, that thing that breaks in some of them just never gets fixed. Maybe printing out your posts from this thread and giving it to them will be more helpful than the new sets of sheets and towels I gave. We are kind of limited as to what we can do (society) no matter how much we want to help. (Unless you have an idea of how we could be doing better for our guys.)
 
Hi Amanda- You are probably right, post therapy after the incident may never fix with the gentlemen in question, but perhaps with the right help he may be able to live with what he experienced, and eventually life a live he deserves once more. However I am not an authority on PTSD, and would not like to say either way. What I can say however is how much literature there is on the high rates of PTSD rates amount Vietnam vets. Because of the way they were treated by society on their return. Grossman actually does a great job in explaining this in his book: On killing, which i would thoroughly recommend. What he writes is a good reason why society needs to be better educated on how to treat these soldiers when they return.
 
So It looks like the veteran societies are not really interested in helping me out. It also seems that gaining access to actively serving military sample will involve a lot of red tape, which as I originally suspected, may prove impossible.

So I am going to suggest the following and see what you guys- who have helped so much- think.

For the military side of things I will use secondary material, biographies, memoirs, history books, and- thanks to you guys- the primary sourced material I have gained from these discussions, as a form of qualitative analysis to perform discourse analysis and perhaps coding to perform quantitative analysis, to explain why I believe Identity is playing a part in both the explanation of resistance to killing, and questioning the very notion of the resistance itself. From you guys alone I have over 6,000 words and counting for this. Of course, this is only if you guys are happy for me to use this information (you would be anonymous, referred to only by a number I denote, and possibly the unit you serve in and decade/war/engagement you served in). I would still pass on this questionnaire for you guys to give my your input.

Grossman suggests that this resistance applies to all people, and that the military training overrules it. Based on this theory then, all people, from all walks of life, should report this resistance.

My idea is to give the questionnaire to the public, who I will split into three groups: Those applying for the military, those applying for a combat role in the military, and regular citizens. It is my theory that if they do have this resistance, it will be based on their identity, but more likely, those who identify themselves more strongly with the military (esp with combat roles) will show no real resistance to the idea of killing legally, under the right circumstances. Thus giving me an ability to measure what traits lead to this 'lack of resistance'. I will quantify these results, giving me statistics that I can use to make predictions. If these results find Grossman is correct, then that is also fine, as it further solidifies his theory.

This works because it avoids Grossman's theory that the military have conditioned people to kill, because I'm using people who have yet to go through this.

What do you guys think?

Thanks.
 
I just joined because I am interested in beginning my Psychology PhD. I have a Masters in Sociology - Criminal Justice, and I am a Professor at Interamerican University in Puerto Rico. I am interested in researching the willingness to kill in latino gangs territorial disputes. I found Grossman's work interesting and I would like to use those theories to link the behavior of gang "gatilleros" (spanish for "trigger pullers"")
 
Back
Top