On killing
Page 26
Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.
234 T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES
The Exhilaration Stage: "I Had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction"
Combat Addiction . . . is caused when, during a firefight, the body releases a large amount of adrenaline into your system and you get what is referred to as a "combat high." This combat high is like getting an injection of morphine — you float around, laughing, joking, having a great time, totally oblivious to the dangers around you. The experience is very intense if you live to tell about it.
Problems arise when you begin to want another fix of combat, and another, and another and, before you know it, you're hooked.
As with heroin or cocaine addiction, combat addiction will surely get you killed. And like any addict, you get desperate and will do anything to get your fix.
—Jack Thompson
"Hidden Enemies"
Jack Thompson, a veteran of close combat in several wars, warned of the dangers of combat addiction. T h e adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter or marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is c o m -
pleted at medium to long range.
Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. Or might it just be more socially acceptable for pilots to speak of it? Whatever the case, many do speak of experiencing such emotions. O n e fighter pilot told Lord Moran: Once you've shot down two or three [planes] the effect is terrific and you'll go on till you're killed. It's love of the sport rather than sense of duty that makes you go on.
And J. A. Kent writes of a World War II fighter pilot's "wildly excited voice on the radio yelling [as he completes an aerial combat kill]: 'Christ! He's coming to pieces, there are bits flying off everywhere. Boy! What a sight!'"
THE KILLING RESPONSE STAGES 235
On the ground, too, this exhilaration can take place. In a previous section we noted young Field Marshal Slim's classic response to a World War I personal kill. "I suppose it is brutal," he wrote,
"but I had a feeling of the most intense satisfaction as the wretched Turk went spinning down." I have chosen to name this the exhilaration phase because its most intense or extreme form seems to manifest itself as exhilaration, but many veterans echo Slim and call it simply "satisfaction."
The exhilaration felt in this stage can be seen in this narrative by an American tank commander describing to Holmes his intense exhilaration as he first gunned down German soldiers: "The excitement was just fantastic . . . the exhilaration, after all the years of training, the tremendous feeling of lift, of excitement, of exhilaration, it was like the first time you go deer hunting."
For some combatants the lure of exhilaration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhilaration stage and never truly feel remorse. For pilots and snipers, who are assisted by physical distance, this fixation appears to be relatively common. The image of the aggressive pilot who loves what he does (killing) is a part of the twentieth-century heritage. But those who kill completely without remorse at close range are another situation entirely.3
Here again we are beginning to explore the region of Swank and Marchand's 2 percent "aggressive psychopaths" (a term that today has evolved into "sociopaths"), who appear to have never developed any sense of responsibility and guilt. As we saw in a previous section, this characteristic, which I prefer to call aggressive personality (a sociopath has the capacity for aggression without any empathy for his fellow human beings; the aggressive personality has the capacity for aggression but may or may not have a capacity for empathy), is probably a matter of degrees rather than a simple categorization.
Those who are truly fixated with the exhilaration of killing either are extremely rare or simply don't talk about it much. A combination of both of these factors is responsible for the lack of individuals (outside of fighter pilots) who like to write about or dwell upon the satisfaction they derived from killing. There is a 236
T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES
strong social stigma against saying that one enjoyed killing in combat. Thus it is extraordinary to find an individual expressing emotions like these communicated by R. B. Anderson in "Parting Shot: Vietnam Was Fun(?)":
Twenty years too late, America has discovered its Vietnam veterans. . . . Well-intentioned souls now offer me their sympathy and tell me how horrible it all must have been.
The fact is, it was fun. Granted, I was lucky enough to come back in one piece. And granted, I was young, dumb, and wilder than a buck Indian. And granted I may be looking back through rose-colored glasses. But it was great fun [Anderson's emphasis]. It was so great I even went back for a second helping. Think about it.
. . . Where else could you divide your time between hunting the ultimate big game and partying at "the ville"? Where else could you sit on the side of a hill and watch an air strike destroy a regimental base camp? . . .
Sure there were tough times and there were sad times. But Vietnam is the benchmark of all my experiences. The remainder of my life has been spent hanging around the military trying to recapture some of that old-time feeling. In combat I was a respected man among men. I lived on life's edge and did the most manly thing in the world: I was a warrior in war.
The only person you can discuss these things with is another veteran. Only someone who has seen combat can understand the deep fraternity of the brotherhood of war. Only a veteran can know about the thrill of the kill and the terrible bitterness of losing a friend who is closer to you than your own family.
This narrative gives us a remarkable insight into what there is about combat that can make it addicting to some. Many veterans might disagree strongly with this representation of the war, and some might quietly agree, but few would have this author's courageous openness.4
The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror We have previously observed the tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill: T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES 237
. . . my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust. . . . I dropped my weapon and cried. . . . There was so much blood . . . I vomited. . . . And I cried. . . . I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up.
We have seen all of these quotes before, and this collage of pain and horror speaks for itself. Some veterans feel that it is rooted in a sense of identification or an empathy for the humanity of their victim. Some are psychologically overwhelmed by these emotions, and they often become determined never to kill again and thereby become incapable of further combat. But while most modern veterans have experienced powerful emotions at this stage, they tend to deny their emotions, becoming cold and hard inside — thus making subsequent killing much easier.
Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless almost always there. T h e killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.
The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It T o o k All the Rationalization I Could Muster"
The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done.
This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt behind, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right.
This narrative by John Foster reveals some of the rationalization that can take place immediately after the kill: It was like a volleyball game, he fired, I fired, he fired, I fired. M
y serve — I emptied the rest of the magazine into him. The rifle slipped from his hands and he just fell over. .. .
It sure wasn't like playing army as a kid. We used to shoot each other for hours. There was always a lot of screaming and yelling.
After getting shot, it was mandatory that you writhe around on the ground.
. . . I rolled the body over. When the body came to rest, my eyes riveted on his face. Part of his cheek was gone, along with 238 T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES
his nose and right eye. The rest of his face was a mixture of dirt and blood. His lips were pulled back and his teeth were clinched.
Just as I was feeling sorry for him, the Marine showed me the U.S.
Government Ml carbine the gook had used on us. He was wearing a Timex watch and sporting a new pair of U.S.-made tennis shoes.
So much for feeling sorry for him.
This narrative gives a remarkable — and almost certainly unintentional — insight into the early aspects of rationalizing a personal kill. N o t e the writer's recognition of the killer's humanity associated with the use of words such as " h e , " " h i m , " and "his." But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and " h e " becomes "the body" and ultimately "the gook."
O n c e the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.
To the reader this rationalization and justification is completely unnecessary. To the writer this rationalization and justification of his kill are absolutely essential to his emotional and psychological health, and their progression is unconsciously revealed in his narrative.
Sometimes the killer is quite aware of his need for and use of rationalization. N o t e the conscious rationalization and justification in this account by scout helicopter pilot D. Bray: We began to be very efficient executioners, a role we took no real pride in.
I had mixed feelings about this, but as bad as it was, it was better than leaving NVA alive to attack American troops somewhere else.
Often orders for the day would be: Find NVA in this or that area
. . . to pick up for interrogation.
We would drift up and down hillsides, following trails and literally looking under big rocks until we would find several NVA huddled on the ground, trying to hide. We would radio back to headquarters as we backed off far enough to arm our rockets.
Orders would be "Wait, we're checking it out." Then the bad T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES
239
news would come, "Wrong area, Fixer. Are they making any signs of surrender?"
We would reply, "Negative," and then they would come back with, "Kill them if you can."
"For God's sake, can't you send someone out to take them prisoner?"
"There is no one available. Shoot them!"
"Roger," we'd reply, and then we'd cut loose. Sometimes they would understand and take off running for cover, but usually, they would just crouch in their holes until our rockets hit. Common sense told me that the senior officers were right; it was foolish to send a platoon after every little band of three or four armed men, but it took all the rationalization I could muster before I could accept what I was doing.
. . . Distasteful as it was, looking back, I can see that what we did was the only effective way to counter the NVA tactic of breaking into such small units that there was no effective way to go after them.
All of this comes as an introduction to Bray's magazine article in which he tells of the time when he didn't ask for orders. Instead he landed his little two-seater helicopter and, at great danger to himself and his copilot, captured a solitary NVA soldier, rather than executing him, and subsequently brought the prisoner home sitting in his copilot's lap.
Here again we see an article that appears to represent a deeply felt request for understanding by the reader. The average reader probably sees no need to justify these kills, but the killer does.
The point here is that it is this one incident of which Bray is — I think justifiably — proud. And it is this incident that he wanted to tell in a national forum. His message can be seen over and over in these personal narratives about Vietnam: "Look, we did our j o b and we did it well, and it needed doing even though we didn't like it; but sometimes we just had to go above and beyond what was expected of us in order to avoid the killing." And maybe by writing and publishing this article he is telling us that "this time, the time when I didn't have to kill anybody, this is the time that 240
THE KILLING RESPONSE STAGES
I want to tell you about. This is the time that I want to be remembered for."
Sometimes the rationalization can manifest itself in dreams. Ray, a veteran of close combat in the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, told me of a recurring dream in which he would talk with the young Panamanian soldier he had killed in close combat. "Why did you kill me?" asked the soldier each time. And in his dreams Ray would attempt to explain to his victim, but in reality he was explaining and rationalizing the act of killing to himself: "Well, if you were in my place, wouldn't you have done the same? . . .
It was either you or us." And over the last few years, as Ray worked through the rationalization process in his dreams, the soldier and his questions have gone away.
Here we have seen some aspects of how rationalization and acceptance works, but we need to remember that these are just some aspects of a lifelong process. If the process fails it will result in post-traumatic stress disorder. The failure of the rationalization and acceptance process in Vietnam, and its subsequent impact upon our nation, will be looked at in "Killing in Vietnam," the next section of this book.
Chapter Two
Applications of the Model:
Murder-Suicides, Lost Elections, and
Thoughts of Insanity
An Application: Murder-Suicides and Aggression Responses An understanding of the killing response stages permits understanding of individual responses to violence outside of combat. For instance, we may now be able to understand some of the psychology behind murder-suicides. A murderer, particularly an individual who kills several victims in a spree of violent passion, may very well be fixated in the exhilaration stage of killing. But once there is a lull, and the murderer has a chance to dwell on what he has done, the revulsion stage sets in with such intensity that suicide is a very common response.
These responses can even occur when aggression intrudes into our day-to-day peacetime lives. They are far more intense when one kills in close combat, but just a fistfight can bring them up.
Richard Heckler, a psychologist and a high-level master of the martial art of aikido, experienced the full range of response stages in a fight with a group of teenagers who attacked him in his driveway: 242
T H E KILLING R E S P O N S E STAGES
When I turned my back someone shot out of the back seat, grabbed my arm, and spun me around. A bolt of adrenalin surged through me and without a moment's hesitation I backhanded him in the face.
I was suddenly released from all restraints. I'd been assaulted physically, it was now my right to unleash the fury I felt from the beginning. As the driver came towards me I pushed his grab aside and pinned him by the throat against the car. . . . The kid I hit was stumbling around holding his face. I was in full-bloom righteous indignation by this point. Having given myself total permission to set justice in order I turned to settle matters with the kid under my grip.
What I saw stopped me in horror. He looked at me in total and absolute fear. His eyes were glazed in terror; his body shook violently. A searing pain spread through my chest and heart. I suddenly lost my stomach for revenge . . . seeing that boy's terror as I held his throat made me understand what Nietzsche meant when he wrote . . . "Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared."
First we see the actual, initial blow being struck reflexively without thinking: "without a mom
ent's hesitation I backhanded him in the face." Then the exhilaration and euphoria stage occurs: "I was suddenly released from all restraints. . . . it was n o w my right to unleash the fury I felt." And suddenly the revulsion stage sets in:
"What I saw stopped me in horror. . . . A searing pain spread through my chest and heart."
This process might even help to explain the responses of nations to killing in warfare. After the Gulf War, President Bush was the most popular president in recent American history. America was in the euphoria stage as it had its parades and congratulated itself on its performance. T h e n came a kind of moral hangover very much like the revulsion stage, which was just in time for President Bush to lose the election. Could this be pushing the model too far? Perhaps, but the same thing happened to Churchill after World War II, and it almost happened to Truman in 1948. Truman was APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL 243
lucky enough to have his election three years after the war was over, which may have been sufficient time for the nation to begin the rationalization and acceptance stage. This may indeed be stretching the model too far, but perhaps it will give future politicians something to think about when they consider going to war.
"I Thought I Was Insane": Interaction Between Exhilaration and Remorse
When I talk to veterans' groups about the killing response stages their reactions are always remarkable. Any good speaker or teacher recognizes when he has struck a chord in his audience, but the response of veterans to the killing response stage — particularly to the interaction between the exhilaration and the remorse stages —
is the most powerful I have ever experienced.
One of the things that appears to occur among men in combat is that they feel the high of the exhilaration stage, and then when the remorse stage sets in they believe that there must be something
"wrong" or "sick" about them to have enjoyed it so intensely.