|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Polly Mann, W A M M
|
|
The Army must believe that it can undo the effects of years of inculcating beliefs that produce feelings of remorse or guilt at killing. But, one difficulty is that the concept that places no blame on the wartime killing of “the enemy” cannot be carried over into civil society.
"The basic aim of a nation at war is establishing an image of the enemy in order to distinguish as sharply as possible the act of killing from the act of murder.”
—The Warriors, by J. Glenn Gray
Reporter Benedict Carey’s article in the New York Times and reprinted on page 3 of the August 18th Star Tribune: presents a fascinating scenario of the military’s response to a major problem. The headline reads, “Army to give all soldiers psych training.” It seems the “mental effects of repeated deployments–rising suicide rates in the Army, mild traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress–have convinced commanders ‘that we need a program that gives soldiers and their families better ways to cope.’”
Although the article provides no information as to the number of soldiers affected, the total number of soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is under-reported, as many veterans do not want the stigma of mental illness applied to them. The veteran who drinks himself or herself to death is not counted. The veteran who is killed in a single vehicle accident is not counted. The veterans, thousands of them, who are homeless, are not counted. To cope means how to deal with the consequences of acts committed.
Well–good luck, boys! Lt. Col. Dave Grossman must be connected with this program. For five years he researched “The Psychological Cost of Learning To Kill In War And Society,” and then wrote a book about all he had learned with that exact title. He states that the intensity of the trauma suffered by an individual who kills another is in direct proportion to the distance between the two. He cites a 1973 study that found that, of the reasons motivating soldiers to fire, the most critical was “being told to fire.” The bonding of the battlefield leader with the men under his command is as important as his demands for kills. This places great stress on the leader for if the men under his command withstand attack and engage in a heavy exchange of gunfire, he will experience guilt over the loss of lives incurred. Although his book does not state it specifically, one thing can be clearly inferred—Grossman is not against killing, per se—he only wants to help soldiers kill, without having to suffer psychological damage.
I wonder how the late Dr. Albert Ellis would feel about being quoted in the Times article as a source supporting this new military program. Reading his acclaimed and popular book, A Guide to Rational Living, is, in itself, therapy. The psychologist, an exponent of rational emotive therapy, believed that what disturbs people is not events, themselves, but their judgment of events. The factor that causes distress leading to unbearable pain in military personnel is not killing, itself, but their reaction to killing, or being responsible for the killing, of other human beings. Military authorities would like to erase, or at least mitigate, the painful feelings. However, the reaction to killing is the result of education and training, both religious and ethical, defining right and wrong, good and evil. How then could killing be deemed less reprehensible?
That there are psychological effects of killing has long been established. General S.L.A. Marshall, an official U.S. historian of World War II, interviewed thousands of soldiers asking them what it was they did in battle. The results were consistent: “only 15% to 20% of the American riflemen in combat fired at the enemy.” Marshall concluded that “the average and healthy individual . . . has such an inner and totally unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility . . . At the vital point the soldier becomes a conscientious objector.”
Changes made in training after that resulted in an increase in this firing rate that reached 55% in the Korean War and 90% to 95% in Vietnam. An example is provided by authors Gwynne Dyer and Richard Holmes in their book, War: “Most of the language used in Parris Island (during the Vietnam War) to describe the joys of killing people is bloodthirsty but meaningless hyperbole, and the recruits realize that even as they enjoy it. Nevertheless, it does help to desensitize them to the suffering of ‘the enemy’ and at the same time they are being indoctrinated in the most explicit fashion (as previous generations were not) with the notion that their purpose is not just to be brave or to fight well, it is to kill people.”
The Army must believe that it can undo the effects of years of inculcating beliefs that produce feelings of remorse or guilt at killing. But, one difficulty is that the concept that places no blame on the wartime killing of “the enemy” cannot be carried over into civil society. Our legal system characterizes killing as a punishable crime. All the major religions of the world proclaim that one of the most grievous of errors (sins?) is to kill another human being. Prophets have died praying for those responsible for their deaths. To counteract such beliefs, in my opinion, it would be necessary to eliminate such teachings in the synagogues, churches, mosques and temples.
As stated, programming the soldier is not new for the military. What is new is the military’s official recognition that soldiers suffer psychologically from the effects of killing other human beings—those like unto themselves. Some aspect of this concern for the development of “ emotional resiliency” could be the high cost of treating and hospitalizing soldiers suffering from trauma induced on the battlefield.
During my lifetime the mainstream media has, in its reporting, given approval of wars in which the U.S. has been involved. It has generally accepted the version of conflicts provided by the military and by the government, itself. There has been little outcry from mainstream religious institutions at the U.S. bombing of an estimated 25 countries since World War II. Soldiers have also been programmed by the military to accept their commands, no matter how onerous.
The problem then, is how to produce an efficient killer who does not later suffer the psychological repercussions responding to years of religious and ethical teaching. Will there be a religious outcry over this $117 million program? Will religious leaders consider this indoctrination a threat? Perhaps parents of soldiers put in jeopardy because of their belief that killing is wrong, is evil, will understand the dichotomy and hold religious teachings responsible for the trauma. After all, the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment shouldn’t play so well during wartime, but this nation is, and has been, at war somewhere in the world for many, many years. |
|
|
|
© 2009 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete October 2009 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
