Freedomain Radio

in
Latest post Tue, Jan 3 2012 10:54 AM by Alan Chapman. 22 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Sat, May 1 2010 8:34 PM

    Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=why-soldiers-get-a-kick-out-of-kill-2010-04-23

     

    Do some soldiers enjoy killing? If so, why? This question is thrust upon us by the recently released video of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots shooting a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad in 2007. Mistaking the camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilots machine-gunned the reporter and driver and other nearby people.

    The most chilling aspect of the video, which was made public by Wikileaks, is the chatter between two pilots, whose names have not been released. As Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times put it, the soldiers "revel in their kill." "Look at those dead bastards," one pilot says. "Nice," the other replies.

    The exchange reminds me of a Times story from March 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Baghdad. The reporter quotes Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, a Marine sharpshooter, saying, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people." Noting that his troop killed an Iraqi woman standing near a militant, Schrumpf adds, "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way."

    Does the apparent satisfaction—call it the Schrumpf effect—that some soldiers take in killing stem primarily from nature or nurture? Nature, claims Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University and an authority on chimpanzees. Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in both male humans and chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives—an innate propensity for "intergroup coalitionary killing" [pdf], in which members of one group attack members of a rival group. Male humans "enjoy the opportunity" to kill others, Wrangham says, especially if they run little risk of being killed themselves.

    Several years ago, geneticists at Victoria University in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to a variant of a gene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulates the function of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. According to the researchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent of Maori men, who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent of Caucasian males.

    But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very few men are innately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand found that 98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat suffered psychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100 soldiers who seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressive psychopathic personalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazy because they were crazy to begin with.

    Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried out by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent had fired their weapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded that most soldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well as being killed. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in his postwar book Men Against Fire, "has such an inner and usually 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 he becomes a conscientious objector."

    Critics have challenged Marshall's claims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revamped its training to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to Dave Grossman, a former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at West Point. In his 1995 book On Killing, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have been corroborated by reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars and other conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one's fellow man has existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.

    The reluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensified training, direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda that glorifies the soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the proper conditioning and the proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and will kill," Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initially exhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsion and remorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced by many combat veterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species."

    In other words, the Schrumpf effect is usually a product less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd term for training that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.

    Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:

    Freedomain Radio - The Largest Philosophy Conversation in the World | Promote Your Page Too


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support!


    My status

  • Sat, May 1 2010 9:04 PM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    So isn't the title a bit misleading because the article shows that in the long run soldiers don't get a kick out of killing?

  • Sun, May 2 2010 7:25 AM In reply to

    • Blayze
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sun, May 2 2010
    • Posts 8

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

     The key part is in the long run- in the short run, a soldier's way of coping with their task is to try and find humor in the situation, to convince themselves that their actions aren't evil. Once they realize that they were just lying to themselves, for many it's hard to accept their pasts, to learn from their mistakes- to live knowing that they were the one who pulled the trigger to end another man's (Or, worse, woman or child's) life, and laughed. Many times this results in the depression and post-traumatic stress that are common among returned soldiers- and often, this leads to suicide.

     Most of these soldiers are everyday, ordinary people forced into a situation where they have to make a choice- between firing, or risking the lives of themselves and their allies, be punished for insubordination, and knowing that the act will still be carried out whether they're the ones to pull the trigger or the next person in line. And of course, there is the training that each of them has undergone, and the dehumanization of the people they're murdering- they never refer to them as human, only by code-names and numbers.

     Hopefully, the future will be different- it is up to those blessed with minds to think of what their actions bring, to change this world. "War... War never changes"- but we can.

  • Sun, May 2 2010 11:21 AM In reply to

    • GregG
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Feb 21 2006
    • Brooklyn, NY
    • Posts 14,288
    • Philosopher King

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    I spent a grand total of 12 weeks in the military, and just in that brief experience, I only met one man who was genuinely eager to kill. Everyone around me had either idealistic or practical reasons for being there: pay for college, can't get work anywhere else, a chance to defend the country, and other nonsense.

    But when this fellow was asked, he always gave exactly the same response:

    "To serve my leader, and to kill people."

    He had no visible temper. He was unimpulsive and steady in his demeanor. Not unemotional, but also not at all what I expected someone who DESIRED to kill to be like.

    What he did have, was an odd, dark, icy-hot stare that would send chills down your spine if you looked him in the eye.

    He was responsible for waking me up to the mistake I'd made.

    The walking dead desire nothing more, than to give death to the world.

     

  • Fri, May 28 2010 1:10 AM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Killing means that whoever you killed can't kill you.  That's a very good thing if they were trying.  I know if someone were trying to murder me I'd be glad they were dead.   The fact that the Apache crew were happy about killing just means they were very bad at distinguishing people who might kill them from people who aren't, not an uncommon thing amoung the government trained.

  • Sun, Jul 25 2010 5:54 PM In reply to

    • Paul47
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Jul 12 2010
    • Posts 211

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Col.Jeff Cooper has stated that the normal response for killing someone who is attempting to kill you (say, in a criminal assault), is to feel wonderful and exhilarated, not (as the media Ministry of Propaganda often puts it) remorseful. This no doubt is a factor in the "kick" Stefan is talking about.

    The problem that comes later, I think, is that being in Iraq and shooting someone who is defending his country (town, people, family, whatever) is not a defensive situation. It is an offensive one. YOU are the one engaging in the criminal assault. Eventually this dawns on the soldier. No wonder suicide rates are so high.

    Just my opinion...

  • Fri, Sep 10 2010 12:08 AM In reply to

    • Cooper MacLean
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Sep 21 2006
    • Dallas, Texas Prefecture of the American Imperium
    • Posts 962

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    I read a book recently called The Ghosts of Cannae.  One section of the book the author tries to make the argument that war and militarism are the hijacking of natural, evolutionary, human behaviors.  He basically states that it is not hard to imagine a group of hunters in pre-historic times swapping "war stories" about their hunts, talking about women, food, people or things they dislike, etc.; all the stuff modern soldiers talk about as well.

    He argues that the group bond, identity, cohesion, and skill through cooperation and long-suffering our ancestors gained as hunter/gatherers was carried forth and co-opted to form militaries after agricultural societies sprang up.  Not sure if I am convinced.  I can see his point from a purely technical, practical standpoint: being good at coordinated group hunting and killing of animals early on would tend to create a skill set that would make a species good at large-scale, internecine violence.  

    But, I think the moral argument of how one can go from killing elk, buffalo, mammoth, etc. to one's own kind is not made.  Also, if we were so good at killing and it was a default, then why is homo sapiens extant?  Would we not have killed each other off by now unless there was some other evolutionary behavior, like cooperation, that carried the species forth and in greater numbers?  I think so.

     

    
    
    
    
    
    

     

     

     

    "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." - Frederic Bastiat

  • Fri, Sep 10 2010 8:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Twelve U.S. soldiers face trial after Afghan civilians 'were killed for sport and their fingers collected as trophies'

    ...the father of one of the five accused of murder said today he tried to warn the Army that troops in his son's unit had killed civilians.

    By the time suspects were arrested in May, two more Afghans were dead.

    Christopher Winfield said his son Adam, 22, was so disgusted after the first killing that he sent Facebook messages home asking for help.

    Winfield called the Army and a military hot line asking officials to investigate - to no avail.

  • Mon, Sep 27 2010 8:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Confession Video: US Soldier Describes Thrill Kill of Innocent Afghans

    Dressed in a t-shirt and Army shorts, a 22-year-old corporal from Wasilla, Alaska casually describes on a video tape made by military investigators how his unit's "crazy" sergeant randomly chose three unarmed, innocent victims to be murdered in Afghanistan.

    Corporal Jeremy N. Morlock is one of five GI's charged with pre-meditated murder in a case that includes allegations of widespread drug use, the collection of body parts and photos of the U.S. soldiers holding the Afghan bodies like hunter's trophies.

    There is a short video at the link above of part of the interview.

    update (Oct 1, 2010): Photos show US soldiers posing with Afghan corpses (no photos at link)

    Those who have seen the photos say they are grisly: soldiers beside newly killed bodies, decaying corpses and severed fingers.

    The dozens of photos, described in interviews and in e-mails and military documents obtained by The Associated Press, were seized by Army investigators and are a crucial part of the case against five soldiers accused of killing three Afghan civilians earlier this year.

    Troops allegedly shared the photos by e-mail and thumb drive like electronic trading cards. Now 60 to 70 of them are being kept tightly shielded from the public and even defense attorneys because of fears they could wind up in the news media and provoke anti-American violence.

    US Army 'kill team' in Afghanistan posed with photos of murdered civilians

    Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of "trophy" photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed.

  • Fri, Nov 12 2010 1:11 PM In reply to

    • konkin
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 12 2010
    • cologne, germany
    • Posts 43

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    I think that it makes a big difference how you kill someone. In Collateral Murder the killings could also be in a video game. Thus, the resistance to kill the 'insurgents' is greatly reduced. It's much harder to kill someone if you can see him face to face.

  • Wed, Nov 24 2010 12:27 PM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Killing 'Really Addictive:' Veteran's Essay Leads to Ban From Campus

    In an essay for a college English class, Charles Whittington Jr. opened up about his feelings about his time in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Killing becomes a drug, and it is really addictive. I had a really hard time with this problem when I returned to the United States, because turning this addiction off was impossible," Whittington wrote in the essay for his class at the Community College of Baltimore County in Catonsville, Md.

    "I wrote this essay and the teacher gave me an A for it, and she encouraged me to publish it in the school newspaper," Whittington said. "Two weeks later, it was published."

    After reading it, college administrators called Whittington into a meeting.

    "They said he's barred until he gets a psychological evaluation," said Deborah O'Doherty, president of the Maryland chapter of American War Mothers and a friend of Whittington's family. She attended the meeting with Whittington. "They also gave him a no-trespass notice and kept bringing up the Virginia Tech shooting."

    . . .

    "He's addicted to hyperarousal and the adrenaline rush," said Dr. Jon Shaw, professor of psychiatry at the University of Miami School of Medicine. "That's what becomes addicting is the rush."

    Hyperarousal is the result of an overactive amygdala in people with PTSD. Repeated exposure to traumatic stress causes changes in the brain which can result in difficulty controlling rage and outbursts, and an inability to remain calm and composed in stressful situations.

  • Thu, Nov 25 2010 3:12 AM In reply to

    • FreeMan
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Aug 16 2008
    • Vicuña, Chile
    • Posts 106
    • Philosopher King

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    GregG:

    The walking dead desire nothing more, than to give death to the world.

    Well said!

  • Mon, Mar 28 2011 10:05 AM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

  • Sun, Apr 3 2011 10:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    Alan Chapman:

    Killing 'Really Addictive:' Veteran's Essay Leads to Ban From Campus

    In an essay for a college English class, Charles Whittington Jr. opened up about his feelings about his time in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Killing becomes a drug, and it is really addictive. I had a really hard time with this problem when I returned to the United States, because turning this addiction off was impossible," Whittington wrote in the essay for his class at the Community College of Baltimore County in Catonsville, Md.

    "I wrote this essay and the teacher gave me an A for it, and she encouraged me to publish it in the school newspaper," Whittington said. "Two weeks later, it was published."

    After reading it, college administrators called Whittington into a meeting.

    "They said he's barred until he gets a psychological evaluation," said Deborah O'Doherty, president of the Maryland chapter of American War Mothers and a friend of Whittington's family. She attended the meeting with Whittington. "They also gave him a no-trespass notice and kept bringing up the Virginia Tech shooting."

    . . .

    "He's addicted to hyperarousal and the adrenaline rush," said Dr. Jon Shaw, professor of psychiatry at the University of Miami School of Medicine. "That's what becomes addicting is the rush."

    Hyperarousal is the result of an overactive amygdala in people with PTSD. Repeated exposure to traumatic stress causes changes in the brain which can result in difficulty controlling rage and outbursts, and an inability to remain calm and composed in stressful situations.

     

      Here's  a great idea, treat the experienced killer totally unfairly because he was honest about his feelings because some of what he says suggests he might be dangerous.  That's sure to make him less violent.  Banning him from campus will be totally effective because campus security is so effective.  Universities aren't completely open to anyone who wants to wander in and campus cops are fully capable of defending against a combat veteran.  No possible downside to this at all.  

  • Thu, Sep 1 2011 8:57 AM In reply to

    Re: Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

    WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head

    A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks suggests that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

    The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks’ website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

    But Philip Alston, the UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next >
Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems