Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing
 

How will they cope?

The great thing about the mini series: Band of Brothers is that it shows what life was like for the guys in the "trenches" - how they coped (or not), with being shot at, and how they coped with having to shoot another man. The accompanying documentary with interviews with surviving veterans really adds to your understanding of what they went through - as much as it is possible for us to understand. I just can't imagine what it would be like to go through a war. I feel a great deal of empathy for those poor men (and women), and I am extremely grateful for their sacrifices. I admire those people immensely.

Well it worked because by Viet Nam the number was 95%, but nobody bothered to de-train/de-brief these guys, which caused a lot of trouble at home. :(

Wow, that's really depressing. I'm sad just from reading the article in thinking what it must be like to have to deal with those mental demons for the rest of your life. It also reminds me that I probably could not endure what those soliders do. I think I would crack early and easily.

It is supposed to be protocol for returning troops to be provided critical incident stress debriefing to assist with "reentry" into civilian life.

I was acquainted with an Army Ranger once. I have no idea how "typical" he was of elite soldiers. What I do know is how unnerved I was upon learning how easy it was for him to adjust to the idea of killing someone once he put them in "The Box." * It was also disturbingly easy for him to put people in the box - even people he would encounter in daily life - stateside - like an obnoxious fan at a football game who directed some (unthreatening) trash talk in our general direction.

The military taught him that. And they didn't seem interested in unteaching it. My guess is that they consider it a vital attribute for as long as you serve but once you get out you are not military anymore so its not their problem.

He never said it in so many words but I got the distinct impression that he was a little scared of himself. I know I was.

* The Box was a way of recategorizing someone into non-person status making their dispatch simple, morally uncomplicated and emotionless.

I think that the box is a good idea.

Something similar could be used by the military overall.

For us, submariners, combat is impersonal and not too difficult the adjust too. Stress is the only real concern.

They could train all of the personel who needed it in how to use it and then when they are done, all they have to do is readjust the criteria for who goes in the box, instead of having to readjust them from the much larger issue of killing in general.

It also works in the long term in case you have to recall them. A little box adjustment and back in the field they go.

Which goes to show that what's beneficial to the military is not necessairly beneficial to the society from whcne they came and into which they will eventually be returned

Not necessarily. The ability to keep a defensive vanguard on hand, even after they muster out is a good idea.

You have to figure out what you want to change, and what you don't want to change. Changing the ability to kill is very difficult, changing the ability to kill discriminately might not be so difficult. Kill or don't kill is a strong set of absolutes. Open a wide window when you they are being sent into the theater and then all you have to do is teach a very narrow window of boxhood when you return them to the states.

The long term benefits for the military personell is good as well. They are given a cohesive and concrete ideology within which to protect themselves from some of the guilt of their actions as well as a way to control the tension levels.

Its not the military's concern to return good citizens to the society it is sworn to protect. Maybe society can pick up that burden. I mean, which of the two do you think is more qualified to do that job?

The people I have known that have been in the military have seemed better adjusted than average. Few of these people saw actual combat though.

Not a bad idea. Maybe society could also look at their responsibility as more than just paying taxes overall as well.

the individuals i know who have pulled trigger on other humans, post VN era are extremely well adjusted. military training doesn't turn one into a sociopath capable of killing anyone at a drop of a hat.
the training covers two separate areas 1) physical 2) mental.

the physical portion of it really boils down to repetition so that muscle memory takes over. certain processes are done the exact same way every single time, that way if a need arises stress and environmental issues will not slow one down or get in the way. anyone can learn this if they practice enough. "enough" is different for everyone, obviously.

the mental portion is simply training in risk analysis. the shooter is taught to separate the population into 2 basic categories. 1) those who want to harm you 2) those who wish you no harm.
if you come across the one who wishes you harm - only one of you gets to write a letter home to loved ones that evening; which one do you want that to be?
this is extremely simplified but is pretty accurate. if you get the opportunity to talk to people that have pulled the trigger fairly regularly you will find that most have no special malice or hatred towards their enemy/target. it boils down to them vs. me and mine. the "mine" concept is your friends, the people you live and work with everyday. most of the "hero's" that we know of had no death wish or desire to take on the world, they simply knew that if they didn't do ______ harm would come to their buddies and that was unacceptable.

i forget who quoted it, but Dave Grossman's work is an excellent resource if you want to learn more and don't have the ability to pick the brains of any shooters.

As the wife of an Army Ranger, I haven't seen any problems myself related to guilt. I will say that Mr. Jane wants absolutely nothing to do with former Army buddies, though, and trots out the old "I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you" with a wink whenever someone asks him a question about his time in service. He never gets nasty about it, but he does refuse to discuss most things. I do know that he killed two men at fairly close range, but that's about it. He also has chosen not to take advantage of any government programs for vets, like tuition, VA home loans, etc. and seems to want to forget it all.

That said, Mr. Jane has shown, in a couple of unfortunate situations since his (honorable) discharge that he is willing to defend his family with his life, and I have seen him go from "zero to rage" in about three seconds when he felt that I or one of the children was threatened, and it's almost like tunnel vision. He is not an aggressive person, but is certainly defensive enough to make me feel completely at ease no matter where we go. He was once arrested for attempted murder, but not tried after the story of what actually happened was relayed to the judge (he had done no wrong, and was indeed defending the family). I can't say he wouldn't have had the same reaction without his training. I don't know.

That's it. No more taking the wife and kids to biker bars for Mr. Jane. :)

Yeah, the kids never drink up the minimum anyway, and then I have to finish their drinks. When I get drunk I'm a real pain in the ass, and Mr. Jane gets annoyed with me, and then I don't get any for a few days. So the biker bars are out. ;)

Everyone I know who was in combat situations - both military and otherwise - do one curious thing. Not one has ever admitted to personally killing. Under the right conditions, they will talk about how close they came to dead and sometimes who with them did not make it. But they never admit to personally killing.

That's intriguing tw.

did you ever serve tw? that's not an insult.

the reason i ask is that most of the guys i know are fairly open about it. not in proud or gloating manner, but just in a factual, relating the facts sort of way. but now that i think about it, things like that never are discussed around civilians... maybe it's just a concern that civilians would never understand, so they don't want to open themselves to judgement.

i'll have to ponder that one.

One of the things about combat also is the context of the combat.

Shooting somebody, stabbing somebody, bombing somebody, and launcing a torpedo at somebody are all different and I think they require a different form of detachment.

Never served. Almost joined George Jr in the Reserves.

In those days of and after Vietnam, most who came back never did talk. But after the movie Apocolypse Now, suddenly many started talking. Apparently that movie was close enough to reality that some who did serve felt others would understand the conundrum that was Nam.

I have seen same with some WWII vets. Got enough information to know their units were probably fully involved. But they talk as if their service was entirely patrol and guard duty.

Well it's a funny time to bring this up, and I've just been in a recent fight, but I remember every incident in my life where harm has been inflicted. I've come to regret every act of violence in my life, and I could not imagine anything more than broken noses or hurt feelings. I cannot believe or pretend to understand the horrors that happen in war, and I know from personal experience that soldiers aren't exactly prepared for them either. This time, we should consider all the victims of a senseless war we let happen. Maybe this time we'll get the bastards who started it.

My dad was a medic with an armored division in Europe in WWII. When Saving Private Ryan came out he told me he wouldn't see it because he heard how realistic it was supposed to be.

My uncle is that way about movies about the Korean War.

I had a friend who was a Vietnam Vet who went to all those movies on purpose ... he found it a useful way of getting over/past some stuff, and he'd talk it out with my friend Howard and I afterwards.

His favorite was Full Metal Jacket. He said it was closest.

Saving Private Ryan was horribly realistic.....Except for the total lack of any European soldiers in France :P

Uh,..well,...I saw Germans. But you're right, no French. ;)

The thing that always gets me about it all is jsut the sheer fucking insanity of it all. I think that scene in SPR where they guy sits down for a smoke, brings down the wall and suddenly they're face to face with a squard of german troops, the bit where having made it to the shingle a bullet skims off the guy's hat and he takes it off for a second..and gets his brains blown out...just so fucking random.

The other thing that gets me is there was an age when kings and princes led armies into battle, swords first. We need to bring that back.

Certainly. Any war worth citizens dying over is important enough for leaders to fight in themselves. We'd be more selective and less likely to fly off half-cocked every time someone pisses us off, otherwise known around my house as "picking your battles".

I believe than anyone who has the authority to order us into battle and risk losing our lives has the obligation to be ready to do the same.

What division and when?

Its called nuclear war. Even then, Curtis LeMay was cock sure he could get us into that war. One must understand the "Missiles of October" or even better, see McNamara's "Fog of War" movie that was just recently released. Some who even have the most to loose will still strive to create war. And LeMay was no dummy. He was probably the most competent general in the Air Force in that generation.

I don't understand what you mean. What's called nuclear war?

I think he's refering to when the leaders put themselves in jeopardy, also. :confused:

You posted When does leadership sit at risk just like everyone else? Its called nuclear war. In the World Wars, leadership sat back and sent cannon fodder into the trenches, into frontal assults, and into other continents to 'die for victory'. Leaders were only at risk if they lost the war - not the battle. Nuclear war changed all that. In a nuclear war, the leadership is again on the front lines with everyone else. Suddenly leadership is more willing to seek a political solution rather than a military one. Suddenly leadership is willing to stand up to those extremists who would solve everything using the Tim Allen concept of "more power".

What is the purpose of war? To put the conflict back on a negotiation table. It can be accomplished two ways. First is to fight the war until one emotion is replaced by another. Second is to scare the leadership on both sides with the consequences of that war. But the bottom line remains same. The leadership eventually must be forced back to the negotiation table. The only difference is how much the cannon fodder suffers.

Unfortunately we cannon fodder types are slow to demand courage of our leaders. For example, it was becoming obvious to 1966 and 1967 American leaders that the war in VietNam was completely wrong. But American leaders did not have the balls - could not rise up and end it. In the meantime, we potential cannon fodder types really never bothered to learn how stupid our leaders were for 5 more years. Cannon fodder is typically that slow to learn when their leaders are liars. In that 5 year period, the number of dead more than doubled.

Its easier to send cannon fodder to death than it is to have balls. Leaders sometimes must be at personal risk before they will act as responsible leaders. ie Japan after two nuclear bombs. One example of couragious leadership was the Cuban Missile Crisis - when leadership on both sides was smart enough to use intelligence and experience to understand inconclusive and misleading intelligence and to challenge the extremists. Therefore leadership did not kill us all. And yes, virtually none of us would be here today had Kennedy, McNamara, and Krushchev not put those extremists war mongers back in the bottle.

It takes major courage to not go to war until the smoking gun actually exists. When a leader is on the front line, then sometimes the emotion called fear can provide that courage. Courage to do what the logical mind always knew was necessary.

In a combat situation, there are several ways to neutralize an enemy.

High Altitude Bombing - Easy to go to sleep that night, for you never see the enemy closeup.

Sniping - Picking off an enemy at distance is a little harder, as you see the clothes he wears, the way he walks, the way his hands move when he talks, the tilt of his head.....

CQB - Close Quarters Battle - this involves "sweep and clear" objectives that don't give you time to focus on the fallen, just keeping youself and your team alive while finishing the job. You don't tend to remember faces of the dead. Grenades are your friends.

Hand To Hand - This is the most difficult to forget. You don't forget the smell of the enemy when you're this close. The sounds he makes at the moment of death WILL stay with you until you die. You just have to cope with it. Every night you will think of it, and every day you will try to forget it.

This is far from a complete list. Hilter defines another in his book - propaganda. To separate a public both from their troops and the objective of that war. Hilter defines this specifically as as the reason for Britian's success in WWI.

Another is defined by Sun Tzu: deception. He provides many examples such as an army acting as if it has no stomach for war so that the opposition force attempts major mistakes (ie attacking only with light forces or wasting its precious supplies and resources).

Another is superior tactics such as the VC against a superior military power - the US. Strike and run quick. Leave the enemy furstrated to strike and attack jungle and land mines. Example: Khe Sahn and the Tet Offensive, or the so many VC and N Vietnamese victories that later followed later without a single tactical victory.

Military victory - a strategic success - need not necessarily require tactical victories. The US won virtually every battle and yet lost the war. Little people remain as the symptoms of that defeat. 85% of all problems (and accomplishments) are directly traceable to top management. In Vietnam, the US lost because American leadership was corrupt - Nixon and his generals including Westmoreland. The enemy needed very little tactical actions to win. Top management (leaders) need not do the work. Successful leaders empower their people to utilitize best methods by first and foremost defining an honest and clear objective for that conflict. In Viet Nam, the light at the end of the tunnel was fiction because the objectives were fictional. Because the president lied, lives were uselessly wasted. Therein lies the trauma.

Clearly one of the great military leaders of his time was Ho Chi Minh and General Vo Nguyen Giap who demonstrate how to achieve victory. So little did we Americans understand that concept that McNamara and his Vietnamese counterpart nearly came to blows even in a 1990 conference about that war. Understanding the purpose and reasons for war can be that difficult even to the most intelligent and educated minds.

Another example of successful leadership was FDR and Churchill who up front defined the objectives in WWII (unconditional surrender) and the resulting objectives for peace settlements (the political solution). Honest leadership being necessary to obtain victory.

As Gen McAurthur noted, only poor generals use direct assaults (ie WWI France). Therein lies the real trauma of war. The little people are but victims after the fact - the cannon fodder - when leaders are so corrupt as to not do their job - as both Nixon and George Jr demonstrate. This is where the nation (the public) comes in. A nation that has difficulty understanding what is posted here will often sacrifice good people in a foolish war. The sacrifice in war is the trauma. What those soldiers suffer later are symptoms of the real trauma.

War does have a purpose - sometimes (a statement that obviously first requires a perspective). Then cannon fodder is necessary. However the tragedy of a misguided and unnecessary war, and the resulting unnecessary trauma occurs when the leader is so corrupt as to attack a nation that was never a threat (ie Iraq and Vietnam). A leader chock full of historical and intellictual ignorance creates trauma. Again I cite the classic examples - Nixon and George Jr. And again I cite the latest example of how a public can be irresponsible to its armed forces - ie letting George Jr openly lie about the WMD and all but blame Saddam for the WTC attack. Therein lies the real trauma of war. Those suffering soldier years later are but only symptoms of that trauma.

How can you fault a soldier for being bitter when he lost limbs in a war created by a lying president - to liberate people who did not want to be liberated - to free the world of a threat that never existed.

In addressing the title of this thread I think that observing the after effects of WW2 active service on my father, who later went to the Korean war, and later my two brothers one of whom was grievously injured in N.Ireland and the second in a submarine 'accident', have understandably played a very large part in the development of my pacifist beliefs. All three were damaged physically and psychologically, and neither would have sought or accepted help with the latter even were it offered. Their physical injuries were public knowledge but anything else remains to this day a well concealed family only concern, never brought into life outside home. Terrors, nightmares, rages, for years and years and years. The one and only time I ever heard my father talk with any honesty about his experiences was just after the first showing of Band of Brothers on British TV. He believed profoundly that there was nothing noble about his sacrifice or that of others. The men he killed and maimed were essentially no different to him. There is no doubt the experience haunted his life, which ended recently.

I sometimes enjoy a fantasy which involves world 'leaders' being locked into arenas of combat without their supporting cast of cannon fodder, media advisors or weaponry of any kind. In other words, no money changes hands. I am not sure of the ending though, or rather how to judge the victor, since sheer physical might is not necessarily always on the side of the right.... any thoughts?

tw, I'm not sure, but it sounds like CG might be speaking from personal experience...