Home of
the National Tactical Invitational
To view us online, visit http://www.teddytactical.com/
Featured
Article: 04-2006
On Killing: The
Psychological Cost
of Learning to Kill in War & Society
In 1995 Lt.
Col. Dave Grossman (US Army, ret.) penned an original work on a subject that
deserves in depth study and contemplation.
His book entitled On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to
Kill in War and Society delves into the impact taking the life of another
human being has on the psyche of a man not normally predisposed to such
acts. Bookshelves are full of works
delving into the criminal mind and exploring the science (or conjecture) behind
the motivations of what our society considers the most egregious act a man can
commit upon another – the act of taking the life of another human being. But few works explore what effect the taking
of a life has on well adjusted, reasonable, and otherwise peaceable men.
Col.
Grossman, currently Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University,
provides a unique insight into the minds of stable, healthy individuals who
were called upon under circumstances of military service to take the life of
another. First person narratives of
veterans describing their private accounts of taking a life and it’s after
effects on their psyche punctuate the entire book, and if nothing else, makes
this volume a worthwhile read. The book
posits several theories, some of which I agree with, and some I find
questionable.
4 options, not 2. The fight or flight options, as they have
been commonly termed, describe the response available to a man (or woman) when
faced with a perilous encounter. Col.
Grossman disagrees, and states we actually have four choices. In addition to those two, he suggests we
also may either posture or submit. Upon
reflection, four options more accurately encompass threat response
behavior. These latter two are clearly
neither flee nor attack responses, yet they are very real alternatives,
observable both in the animal kingdom and in man’s social construct. Any attempt to pigeonhole threat response
behavior into only two fight/flight choices ignores the reality of human social
interaction.
We commonly observe animals of
the same species posture and submit, especially the social pack animals, where
conflicts serve to establish a ranking rather than turn the animal into a meal
or, for some other such cause, eliminate it.
In fact these very characteristics motivated men to domesticate the
social pack animals and include them in family life. The traits and attributes that enable a dog to submit to a human
master endear it to us and make this bond possible. I have observed my two Jack Russell terriers go thru this
posture/submit cycle countless times both with each other, and other dogs they
meet. Rarely does the fight/flight
behavior occur with another dog. But
when contact with a prey animal occurs the fight response is, well, instinctual
– they are terriers after all.
Recognize Posturing, an essential skill. Relevant to our studies of human behavior,
our fellow man will and does prey within the species. Serious practitioners should consider the ability to identify posturing
behavior in others an essential skill.
Anyone who has social contact has experience recognizing the
posture/submit responses – high school cliques, work relationships, and family
interactions. This form of human
communication is for the most part non-verbal; most human communication
is. Body language conveys intentions
and motivations candidly. In fact when
we discover a malevolent man who has learned to veil his true character his
acquaintances express shock. Serial
killers are often described as having the ability to project themselves as
kind, well-adjusted men who, through an ability to deftly navigate social
norms, won the trust of their victim before striking.
During an encounter with an
individual using instrumental violence to prey on another, the goal of the
violence is to establish a position of strength for the aggressor, and produce
a submission response from the target of the attack. The aggressor using violence as a tool desires not to provoke a
fight response, nor to force the victim to flee, but rather hold his prey
captive and use violence so he can exert his will upon another. Recognizing the behavior that indicates
posturing early allows the targeted victim more response time, and more
response options. In addition, predators
acting in groups have an established pack order, and noticing the cues
displayed within that group can enable an observer to recognize its leaders and
its followers.
The practitioner must keep in
mind that although the aggressor is using violence as a tool to gain
submission, the aggressor can quickly move into an expressively violent actor,
and the motivation for violence becomes personalized. His prey will influence this shift through how he responds to the
aggressor. Role playing and simunition
exercises permit the student to practice interacting with an aggressor and
learn effective ways of dealing with the situation. Conversely, the aggressor using violence expressively is looking
for a fight, and is unlikely to be influenced by any response from the victim
other than one that interferes upon his ability to carry out his plan.
There are several conclusions of
Col. Grossman’s that I disagree with.
One section of the book address a combat engagement continuum where the
degree of proximity a soldier has to his enemy when he takes his life
determines the impact to the psyche of the soldier. He concludes when a sniper takes a life it has a relatively low
impact on the soldier due to the long distance. I believe he has made an error in judgment, and illustrates his
misunderstanding of the nature of that kind of engagement. Lack of proximity does not correlate to lack
of intimacy.
He describes this type of
warfare as detached and disengaged. On
the contrary, the sniper has chosen a specific human target, often observes it
for a period of time (sometimes quite lengthy), and decides at a time of his
choosing when he will end his life. As
his own life usually faces no immediate or direct threat from his target, he
cannot justify his actions as necessary to his safety or survival (kill or be
killed). These factors cause the taking
of a life in such fashion to have a deep impact on the psyche of most men. As they developed, military sniper selection
schools recognized it and make attempts to determine through psychological
evaluation the character traits in men that provide the stability and moral
fiber necessary to effectively perform in this role. It appears Col. Grossman does not fully appreciate this manner of
killing, or he would not have dismissed its impact so casually.
Additionally, he makes an
observation concerning the history of America’s soldier and his willingness to
directly engage another man in mortal combat.
He compares data such as effective hits rates (hits to rounds fired) and
the personal accounts of leaders to bolster his conclusions. He observes that men are more willing to
directly engage the enemy when operating in teams, such as crew served weapons,
or when they cannot visualize their opponent, such as artillery batteries and
bomber groups. He also concludes that
hit ratios have increased in modern time as a result of improved training.
While these may be true
statements, the manner in which he supports this argument contains flaws. He has taken to comparing men from several
different wars, over 2 centuries, and disparate backgrounds without allowing
for the differences in the sample population.
We cannot simply compare an army with say, a larger draft population, to
one from another time with a higher volunteer force without making an allowance
for that difference. Col. Grossman
makes no effort to recognize these variations.
He uses his observations to form conclusions about why the modern soldier
is more effective, but more poignantly why the earlier soldier was not. Perhaps his conclusions are correct, perhaps
they aren’t; I find his methodology of collecting and analyzing supporting data
fundamentally flawed, and therefore his conclusions become mere conjecture and
opinion rather than the authoritative final word he portrays.
This is a worthwhile read, if
for none other reason than it captures and records ordinary men speaking in
anonymous candor about the act of taking another life. He presents a multi-dimensional threat
response reaction as opposed to the two-dimensional traditionally
presented. And he breaks new ground on
work needing much more study.
Considering the increase in the self-defense movement, more men and
women will find themselves having crossed the taboo of taking a life. Those professionals who treat people seeking
help in the form of counseling are well advised to become educated on the
impacts the taking of human life has on the well-adjusted, peaceable citizen.