The Truth About Killing

[Gnarlie]

Here's a link to a TV show that was broadcast a few years back in the UK. It generated some complaints at the time and therefore has never been repeated.

I certainly think it's interesting, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Please be aware that it contains military footage that some may find difficult to view.

I'm interested to see what other people make of it. It presents an unusual question, which I'm not really in a position to form an opinion on, namely: does our basic human nature make us more capable of killing, or less so?

 

[Jenna]

Rhetorically speaking I wonder why is it taboo to talk about killing other people in a martial or war setting.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Rhetorically speaking I wonder why is it taboo to talk about killing other people in a martial or war setting.

I believe that there are a number of reasons. The powerful emotions involved with taking human life by intent are not something many people feel comfortable talking about, and not something other people tend to like to hear about either.

For what it's worth, soldiers do talk about killing to each other, in theatre. That camaraderie is one of a warrior culture of those who have been blooded together, and no one judges another for glorying in battle. There are often no secrets inside the group; everyone knows who kills and who does not, and they know all of everyone's strengths and weaknesses. There are no secrets, so there is no judgment. But groups do not mention such things to other groups, even within the same military unit. If a soldier gets transferred, he does not talk about killing done previously.

In my experience, the veterans who talk about killing either haven't done it, or they have serious mental problems of other sorts. Every veteran who did not fire his weapon intending to kill the enemy is not likely to talk about it either; he generally believes he is the only one who lacks the courage to do so, and feels ashamed of it. However one reacted during war, one puts it away and does not talk about it.

Between veterans and soldiers, it's not the sort of badge one wants to have hanging on one's uniform tunic. We wear badges to represent campaigns, qualifications, units, and awards for being wounded and acts of courage. With only a few exceptions (fighter pilots and snipers come to mind), we don't publicly list verified kills. And I've never met a sniper who liked to talk about his kill count.

There is a reason why firing squads typically have one blank round placed in one rifle and that the marksmen do not know who got the blank; from what I've read, it was not uncommon for firing squads to all miss their target and leave the person being executed still alive. The thought that each rifleman can believe he might be the one with the blank allows them to do the job.

Killing human beings is hard for most of us. Properly so.

 

[Jenna]

It must be a very fraught situation for the individual in many cases. Thank you for taking time to elaborate.

Can I ask please, to your knowledge is there any form of prior formal preparation or mental training for personnel involved in combat situations specifically with reference to killing as a duty?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It must be a very fraught situation for the individual in many cases. Thank you for taking time to elaborate.

Can I ask please, to your knowledge is there any form of prior formal preparation or mental training for personnel involved in combat situations specifically with reference to killing as a duty?

There was not in my day. It is the one thing we don't talk about. We talk about how to keep our weapons ready, how to fire accurately, even when to fire and when not to. We do not talk about the moment of taking a human life.

What little experience I have with it is that if anything, the enemy is dehumanized to the extent possible. That was once easier than it is now; we said we would 'slap a jap' and 'stun a hun' and hunt 'charlie' and kill 'gooks', 'slants', 'slopes', 'dinks', and so on. As long as they were not human beings. I hear my nephews refer to 'rag heads' and 'towel heads' other terms that perhaps should not be mentioned here. I suppose that's about the extent of it; try to make soldiers feel they are not killing humans, but 'things', and evil things at that.

I read a story recently that contained an interview with a sergeant that had become disgusted with the practice of his troops collecting war trophies, including body parts. He forced his troops to gather the enemy dead and bury them; he noted that some of the troops cried.

 

[Tez3]

It must be a very fraught situation for the individual in many cases. Thank you for taking time to elaborate.

Can I ask please, to your knowledge is there any form of prior formal preparation or mental training for personnel involved in combat situations specifically with reference to killing as a duty?

Yes there is, it's covered in training now especially for officers. Many people still believe that the commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', it's a mistranslation, it is 'thou shalt not murder', a totally different thing and one that has meaning in terms of self defence and the military.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8784650/Sandhurst-episode-2-BBC-Four-review.html

 

[Makalakumu]

In martial arts, there are certain techniques that will kill person another if applied. IMHO, having two sensei that I really respect teach me these techniques, the perspective given by the sensei who has actually done it was invaluable.

 

[Sukerkin]

Thank you to Bill for his insights into this more-than-a-little-fraught subject.

I know it might sound odd, given that our soldiers are employed to kill our enemies, but I for one am comforted to hear that most of them find this a difficult thing to gird themselves to do. I would not like to be a citizen of a country whose armed forces revelled in the slaughter of their foes. At times it is a necessity, a brutal one that 'we' (as a society) dress in clothes of honour and glory-under-arms because we must so that we and much more importantly the armsmen themselves, can take something from the struggle other than the knowledge that other people have been extinguished in the name of foreign policy.

 

[Blindside]

If people are interested you might try reading "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman, it goes extensively into the difficulty in getting humans to kill other humans, some of the techniques used to improve the frequency that they will do it in combat, and the emotional consequences to those that do.

 

[Sukerkin]

If you watch the entire series of videos through, I think that it is largely Lt. Col. Grossman's contributions that guide the presenter through from misconceptions, to participation, to understanding that overcoming the autonomic reluctance to kill is not the same as eliminating conscience. One of the more chilling statistics for me, as an Englishman, is that we have lost two thirds again Falklands soldiers to suicide in the years since than we did in the battles at the time.

'Tricking' men into killing each other through conditioning is no answer to the problem of combat 'efficiency', not if we care about what happens to the men who fight in our name. In the end the only answers are either to have all slaughter done remotely or find other ways of resolving conflicts of interest - I know which answer I prefer. The sticking point is if we can ever get there or not.

 

[Makalakumu]

If people are interested you might try reading "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman, it goes extensively into the difficulty in getting humans to kill other humans, some of the techniques used to improve the frequency that they will do it in combat, and the emotional consequences to those that do.

This is assigned reading for black belts at my sensei's dojo.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[jks9199]

If people are interested you might try reading "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman, it goes extensively into the difficulty in getting humans to kill other humans, some of the techniques used to improve the frequency that they will do it in combat, and the emotional consequences to those that do.

His website is www.killology.com Lots of worthwhile articles there.

 

[Tez3]

If you watch the entire series of videos through, I think that it is largely Lt. Col. Grossman's contributions that guide the presenter through from misconceptions, to participation, to understanding that overcoming the autonomic reluctance to kill is not the same as eliminating conscience. One of the more chilling statistics for me, as an Englishman, is that we have lost two thirds again Falklands soldiers to suicide in the years since than we did in the battles at the time.

'Tricking' men into killing each other through conditioning is no answer to the problem of combat 'efficiency', not if we care about what happens to the men who fight in our name. In the end the only answers are either to have all slaughter done remotely or find other ways of resolving conflicts of interest - I know which answer I prefer. The sticking point is if we can ever get there or not.

The suicides however are more complicated than being just down to the Falklands, the same soldiers who fought there were also sent to the Balkans where the majority of the PTSD was formed. The soldiers weren't sent there to fight for a clear cause, they were sent there as UN peace keepers and as such witnessed the aftermath of the horrendous killing and raping sprees that went on there. Soldiers tell of finding babies nailed to trees, of having to dig up mass graves so that the bodies could be identified. They came across awful scenes of butchery and devastation. They found women hanging in the woods, bodies that had been tortured to death, other hacked to death in fornt of their families. The horror was immense and has long lasting repercussion. The soliders felt that they should have been able to stop this, their job is to defend people, either not to be allowed to or to get there too late causes such feelings of guilt and horror many can't live with it. We ask a lot of the military, I'm afraid that sometimes killing is the least of it.

 

[Instructor]

It must be a very fraught situation for the individual in many cases. Thank you for taking time to elaborate.

Can I ask please, to your knowledge is there any form of prior formal preparation or mental training for personnel involved in combat situations specifically with reference to killing as a duty?

Not for me. They taught us how to kill and when to kill but that was about it. I have never had to kill another human and I am not ashamed of it. I think it would be quite a burden.

 

[Tez3]

There are other burdens that are worse to carry than killing another soldier in wartime, that of surviving when your fellow soldiers didn't and that of sustaining injuries that you can't cope with. Last week a police officer here who was shot and blinded by a gunman hung himself because he could no longer go on. Thes e factors alos account for post Falklands suicides, few are through killing people most are because your best mates brains were splattered all over you, or you were one of the few who survived when your ship went down. Few soldiers have it on their minds that they killed other soldiers, the things that stick in their minds are the children who are blown up by IEDs, that fellow soldiers died and they were unable to do anything about it ie when the vehicle crashed in the river in Afghan and the soldiers were unable to get out but those on the bank could here their cries for help and tried desperately to get them out. This report is dry in tone but I've heard the guys talking about it and it was actually horrendous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10402041

A colleague of mine, now retired, had to shoot a young boy once and that stayed with him, it was in Aden the boy about ten or so had a grenade, pin out by insurgents and was running towards the road block where there were many civilians as well as soldiers, the only way to stop him was to shoot him, my colleague didn't feel so much guilty as huge anger at those who would use a child to do such a thing, of course the child would have died when the grenade went off, it was tied securely to his hand they found out but also innocent civilians including children, of the same nationality as the insurgents would have died too. the insurgents being too cowardly to come out fighting themselves.

 

[MA-Caver]

Rhetorically speaking I wonder why is it taboo to talk about killing other people in a martial or war setting.

My first thought is; the reason being is denial. Though Bill had a better answer. We as a (civilized) society have raised our children (including ourselves) learning that killing (another human being) is wrong and shall be punished. Some are conflicted and divided because there are those who are against hunting (animals; deer, ducks, et al) and others that advocate it. So we get mixed messages that way. Then we have war films that show (sometimes TOO graphically) a heroic figure killing numerous enemies and often times with dramatic heroic type music/theme in the background. We watch these films and to say (as individuals) they disgust us is denial as well because 1. Why did you watch it in the first place? Knowing the content. 2. Why is it (sometimes) a blockbuster movie?
To openly talk about it makes us go completely against the grain of the veneer of civilized behavior that we're supposed to be so proud of, yet we still cannot get rid of even the most base of animal instincts within us... killing one another.
Some Sci-fi stories I've read about "first contact" touched upon this. One (alien society) was totally pacifist, no wars in 10,000 of their years. Suddenly they were threatened by a savage, hostile race. Their people/society were ill equipt (mentally and emotionally) to handle and deal with the threat. Then they meet some humans (travelers that crash on their planet) and find that the humans are (in their view) at the same time intelligent, reasoning, savage, brutal creatures and some of the aliens felt that an alliance should be created with the humans to help fight the threat against them. Basically showing that even after we have advanced so far technologically that we are still capable of waging war and conduct savage acts of brutality. It's in our nature, plain and simple. But pacifists here want to deny that we have that capability or at least THEY have that capability.
Watch the movie Straw Dogs and see what can be possible.

Yes there is, it's covered in training now especially for officers. Many people still believe that the commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', it's a mistranslation, it is 'thou shalt not murder', a totally different thing and one that has meaning in terms of self defence and the military.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8784650/Sandhurst-episode-2-BBC-Four-review.html

Exactly, if (the Christian) God did not want us to kill then he wouldn't have instructed David on how to kill Goliath, nor given strength and a battle plan to Joshua and defeat the walls of Jericho (killing hundreds if not thousands) and so forth. Killing is sometimes necessary. I recall reading a passage in the Book of Mormon about how a man was instructed directly by God to kill a king. The passage said something (I'd have to look it up to give a direct quote) to the effect, "Better that one man die than a whole nation perish", I recall reading that and thinking "absolutely". So to kill intentionally (murder) is definitely a sin. To kill in defense is not. Yet this can lead to a theological argument that'll go on for pages.

Thank you to Bill for his insights into this more-than-a-little-fraught subject.

I know it might sound odd, given that our soldiers are employed to kill our enemies, but I for one am comforted to hear that most of them find this a difficult thing to gird themselves to do.

Our soldiers (on both sides of the pond) I think are employed to DEFEND us from our enemies not to arbitrarily kill them. In defense it may become necessary to kill the enemy. Yet the irony is that our soldiers are sent to far off places to help others by killing their enemies when they are not quite yet our own enemies (read: no direct threat). Japan, Germany and other Axis powers during WWII sure because they were an immediate threat, so we go to meet them on their ground not ours.
Just in recent wars there's been no discernible direct threat to American soil enough to warrant sending our soldiers to fight/kill/die. Oh, to protect our "interests" but not our lives. That's the kind of war I'm personally against.
We're beginning to see countries that are under a despot, oppressive rule start to rise up and fight back against their oppressors. Many are finding out that while costly it's not as difficult as they first presumed and our intervention/assistance (beyond secret arms sale and advisors) wasn't necessary. I predict that the mid- African nations will eventually follow suit, rising up against the war-lords who are committing their own brand of atrocities. I say leave 'em alone and let them sort out their own mess. We've got enough problems of our own to attend to.

The suicides however are more complicated than being just down to the Falklands, the same soldiers who fought there were also sent to the Balkans where the majority of the PTSD was formed. The soldiers weren't sent there to fight for a clear cause, they were sent there as UN peace keepers and as such witnessed the aftermath of the horrendous killing and raping sprees that went on there. Soldiers tell of finding babies nailed to trees, of having to dig up mass graves so that the bodies could be identified. They came across awful scenes of butchery and devastation. They found women hanging in the woods, bodies that had been tortured to death, other hacked to death in front of their families. The horror was immense and has long lasting repercussion. The soldiers felt that they should have been able to stop this, their job is to defend people, either not to be allowed to or to get there too late causes such feelings of guilt and horror many can't live with it. We ask a lot of the military, I'm afraid that sometimes killing is the least of it.

George Carlin (yeah, I know, poor example huh?) talks about how we keep changing the language to suit and soften reality. From Shell-Shock (WWI) to PTSD (Vietnam and later conflicts particularly Gulf War Syndrome) we try to deny the harsh realities that our soldiers (young men even) have to face when we send them to far off lands and witness horrible acts of brutality first hand (not by the buffer of photographs or video/film) that if we had still been calling all that fancy jargon "Shell-shock" some of those soldiers might've received the attention they needed when they needed it. There are programs now supposedly to de-brief and de-stress the soldier after their tour(s) of duties, yet is it enough?

I believe all of us have the potential to kill one another of course. I mean that by intentionally doing so. We accidentally kill one another all the time via car accidents and other mishaps. But all of us have that capability to do it intentionally. Why else are we continuing to manufacture, sell/buy weapons of various types. Why else do we continue to study martial arts, Martial meaning War. Why else do we continue to wage war against one another. Why else do we have violent sports? Boxing, Rugby, Football, Wrestling, etc. We are a savage race of creatures. Yet I think we are dealing with it rather nicely. We create laws preventing the nature from enacting itself. We've learned to reason, to control ourselves. When one of us loses control then we justify their deaths as one that needed to be put down like a rabid dog because they no longer acted within the confines of what we call human decent behavior.

Killing is something that we do, and we do it very very well. We keep coming up with new ways to do it. It's in our nature. We either accept it and move on and work on refining it. Or end up destroying ourselves completely.