by Unknown
When the star-shell's flare, as it bursts o'erhead, Scares the gray rats that feed on the dead,
And the bunting bomb or the bayonet-snatch
May answer the click of your safety-catch,
For the lone patrol, with his life in his hand, Is hunting for blood in No Man's Land.
Section III: Killing and Physical Distance
1. For an understanding of how it was possible for Nazis and Assyrians to kill at this "extreme" end of the spectrum, see Section V, "Killing and Atrocities."
2. Quoted from an article by R. K. Brown. These are extracts from after-action 336
N O T E S
reports describing the activities of Sergeant First Class (retired) Adelbert F.
Waldron who, during his tour of duty as a sniper using a starlight scope and a noise suppressor (silencer) on his match- (competition-) grade M14 rifle, was credited with 113 confirmed kills and 10 blood trails in five months in Vietnam.
Waldron's fame spread, and he was given the nom de guerre Daniel Boone.
Apparently, the VC were also impressed with his skill and put a fifty-thousand-dollar price on his head. Twelve hours after Army Intelligence discovered that Waldron had been identified and a bounty offered for his scalp, he was on a plane out of Vietnam.
3. This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating that the universal distribution of automatic weapons in Vietnam is probably responsible for much of this large number of shots fired per kill. Much of this firing was also suppressive fire and reconnaissance by fire. And much of it was by crew-served weapons (e.g., squad machine guns, helicopter door gunners, and aircraft-mounted miniguns firing thousands of rounds per minute), which, as mentioned before, almost always fire. But even when these factors are taken into consideration, the fact that so much fire occurred and that so many individual soldiers were willing to fire indicates that something different and unusual was happening in Vietnam.
This subject is addressed in detail later in this book in the section "Killing in Vietnam."
4. A detailed analysis of these stages of a kill can be found in the section entitled
"The Killing Response Stages."
5. Stewart concludes the article with this sentence. The object of his tale, the climax. The point of this lengthy article appears to be this line that communicates the extent of his empathy for his victim and gives him a little peace: "that hard look had left his eyes before he died." The message we can take away from this is that he cared deeply what this dying VC thought of him, and what the reader thinks of him. If we look for it, over and over again in these killing narratives we will find this underlying message of (1) the writer's empathy for his kill and (2) a deep concern for what the reader thinks of the writer. We will address these needs in much greater detail in the section "Killing in Vietnam."
6. But the Greeks refused to use "unmanly" projectile weapons, and the uniquely designed javelins and pilums cast in volleys by Roman soldiers — combined with the Romans' superior training in thrusting the sword, their maneuverability on the battlefield, and their use of leaders — ultimately permitted the professional Roman legions to defeat the citizen-soldiers of the Greek phalanx.
7. Yet even with all their emphasis on stabbing wounds, it appears that many Roman soldiers still slashed and hacked at the enemy, for we read constandy of enemy soldiers who suffer multiple slash wounds as a result of their encounters with the Roman legions. In his Commentaries on the Gallic War, Caesar mentions how after a battle the enemy, "at length, worn out with wounds, . . . began to retreat."
N O T E S
337
8. It is interesting to note that the new U.S. Army M l 6 bayonet is a very wicked-looking, saw-backed device.
9. Some would claim that writing of such esoteric killing techniques in a public forum is an inappropriate act, since they now become "thinkable." In some martial arts organizations the release of such "secret" or "high-level" techniques can result in disciplining and censure. This whole subject of modeling violence and making the unthinkable thinkable is addressed in the section "Killing in America." In actuality it must also be noted that the construction of the skull and eye socket make it difficult to get into the brain, and I believe that, in consideration of the potential audience, the benefit associated with using this example in this context far outweighs any potential harm.
10. Permit me to caveat all of this just a little. Freud made similar observations as to the latent homosexuality of men who smoked large cigars, but as a cigar smoker himself Freud was quick to add that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
In the same way let me simply add, as a soldier and a gun owner, that sometimes a gun is . . . just a gun.
Section IV: An Anatomy of Killing
1. Helping a veteran in such a situation involves encouraging him to share his experience, confronting the word "murder," and discussing the Bible's or Torah's view on killing.
Encouraging Him to Share This Experience with His Wife. In this case I suggested that he do this by asking her to read William Manchester's Goodbye, Darkness and then use a remarkably similar incident in that book as a point of departure to discuss his experience. (The need for the vet to share with his wife and the value of a book to serve as point of departure are recurring themes in this kind of counseling. Early drafts of this book have served just such a purpose on several occasions.)
Encouraging Him to Confront His Use of the Word "Murder." It was not murder, it was self-defense, and if it happened in the street tomorrow no charges would be pressed. His answer, as it is so often when the veteran represses and never discusses these situations, was "I never looked at it that way." (This is a common and repeated theme in such counseling.)
Discussing What the Bible or the Torah Says about Killing. I encouraged him to study the matter further or discuss it with a clergyman of his faith. This is another common and important theme. There is a body of belief in America that it is not "good" to be a soldier. Much of this antimilitary bias is founded on the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," but within the realm of Christianity there is great disagreement on this matter, and it is not nearly that simple. For the sake of therapy among soldiers I have found that there is great value in presenting the other side of the theological debate about killing.
338
N O T E S
In Exodus, chapter 20, we find the Ten Commandments. Almost four hundred years ago the King James Version translated the Sixth Commandment as
"Thou shalt not kill." When the translators wrote that, no one ever dreamed that "God's word" would be taken so out of context as to interpret this commandment to mean that the death penalty or killing on the battlefield is wrong. In this century, with only one exception, every major modern translation has translated this commandment as "Thou shall not murder." In chapter 21
of the same book of the Bible (on the same page as the Ten Commandments in most Bibles) the death penalty is commanded when it says: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12). The Hebrew word used in the original text of the Sixth Commandment refers to killing for your own personal gain; it has nothing to do with killing under authority. And this is not the first or the last time that the death penalty is commanded by God. In Genesis 9:6, when he got off the ark, Noah was commanded by God,
"Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
King David was a "man after God's own heart," and he was also a man of war. The Bible praises David for killing Goliath in battle, and as a king he is praised:
"Sol killed his thousands, but David has killed his tens of thousands." Killing in war, under authority, is presented as honorable and acceptable throughout the Bible. It was only when King David committed murder, in killing Uriah, that he got into trouble with God. The Old Testament is full of such righteous warrior leaders. David, Joshua, and Gideon are just a few of the hundreds of soldiers mentioned in the Old Testament who found favor in God's eyes for their labors on the batt
lefield. In Proverbs 6:17, the Bible says that God "hates
. . . shedders of innocent blood [emphasis added]." But there is nothing but honor in the Bible for the soldier who kills in just combat.
In the New Testament the story is the same. When the rich young man came to Jesus he was told that he must give away everything he had in order to follow Jesus. But in Matthew 8:10, when the Roman centurion came to him, Jesus said, "I have not found so great a faith, no, not in Israel." And in Acts, chapter 10, the first non-Jewish Christian was designated by God, and he was Cornelius . . . a Roman centurion. God sent Peter to convert him, and it appears to have been a bit of a shock to Peter (and all the other disciples) that a non-Jew could be a Christian, but he never questioned that a soldier should have the honor of being the first one. Most of chapter 10 of the Book of Acts is devoted to Peter's sermon to the centurion Cornelius and his guidance as to how to be a Christian, but never once does Peter, or anyone else, anywhere in the Bible, state that it is incompatible to be a soldier and a Christian. Indeed, exactly the opposite is communicated over and over again.
In Luke 22:36, just minutes before his arrest and subsequent crucifixion, Jesus commanded his disciples that "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." They had three swords among them, and when the N O T E S
339
soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his. But Jesus commanded him to put it away, saying, "He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword," meaning that if the sword is your law, you should die by the sword — the sword wielded by the agents of the government, and in Romans 13:4 Paul wrote that the government "beareth not the sword in vain."
Thus there is a foundation for the argument that (1) "Thou shalt not kill"
is a poor translation taken grossly out of context and (2) this has been responsible for doing great emotional harm to our veterans. The position outlined above has been, and continues to be, the one accepted by much of Catholic and Protestant Christianity for two millennia. This has been the philosophical justification for the church's support for fighting to free the slaves in the Civil War and fighting Germany and Japan in World War II. Today many churches hold that those who have died for our nation are exemplifying Jesus' love and Jesus'
sacrifice for every one of us, for Jesus said, "Greater love has no man than this, that he give his life for his friends."
2. An interview with a veteran who was a retired law-enforcement officer led me to realize that moral distance is the dominant factor that enables violence and the rationalization of violence among police forces. When I described the distance processes to him he pointed out that the establishment and maintenance of what I was calling moral distance are essential to the mental health of police officers, and on a good force it is the primary enabling process. If, on the other hand, the racial and ethnic hatred of cultural distance begins to set in, then there are problems, and a kind of moral rot can cut into the soul of the police force.
3. It is interesting to observe how many of these "punishment" motivators were, in retrospect, less than legitimate. We really never did find out what caused the sinking of the Maine, and it might very well have been an accident.
The Lusitania was carrying war munitions, and the Germans did give us fair warning. And the Gulf of Tonkin Incident appears to have been almost completely fabricated by President Johnson. In most of these cases, though, the politicians were motivated to use these incidents as a rally to excite the popular imagination in order to get involved in a war that they (the politicians) thought was morally legitimate.
The great British statesman Benjamin Disraeli observed that the role of such
"passion" issues would always be a key aspect of a democracy's entry into war.
"If," said Disraeli,
you establish a democracy, you must in due season reap the fruits of a democracy. . . . You will in due season have wars entered into from passion, and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace . . . which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will, in due season, with a democracy find that your property is less valuable and that your freedom is less complete.
340
N O T E S
4. B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning theory and its application to killing will be looked at in greater detail in subsequent sections. His theory is basically that aspect of psychology which most people associate with the lab rat conditioned to press a bar for food. From Skinner's research has arisen a body of psychological thought and theory that is probably matched only by Freud's in its influence.
5. Modern snipers are enabled by group processes, since they are almost always teamed with a spotter who provides mutual accountability and turns the sniper into a crew-served weapon. In addition, snipers are enabled by (1) the physical distance at which they fire, (2) the mechanical distance created by viewing the enemy through a scope, and (3) a temperament predisposed to the job, due to their careful selection by command and self-selection through their willingness to volunteer for the job.
6. But of course the Rhodesians won all the battles and lost the war — as did the U.S. forces in Vietnam. I would submit that in both cases this is because the "enemy" was willing to absorb these horrendous losses, while the Americans and the Rhodesians were not. This is partially a reflection on the impact of moral distance, but it is also a matter of political will and the effectiveness of democracies versus totalitarian forms of government in times of war, and that is a factor that is generally outside the realm of consideration of this study.
7. Like most personality disorders, this one is a continuum that contains many individuals who, while they would not meet the full diagnostic criteria, are on the borderline of antisocial personality disorder. The DSM-III-R tells us that some individuals "who have several features of the disorder [but not enough to be diagnosed with it] achieve political and economic success," and some successful combatants may also fit into this category.
8. Terry Pratchett, in his book Witches Abroad, captured (in a metaphoric sense that Jung would have loved) the essence of the power of archetypal roles and their ability to entrap and warp lives:
Stories exist independently of their players. If you know that, the knowledge is power.
Stories, great flapping ribbons of shaped space-time, have been blowing and uncoiling around the universe since the beginning of time. And they have evolved. The weakest have died and the strongest have survived and they have grown fat on the retelling . . . stories, twisting and blowing through the darkness.
And their very existence overlays a faint but insistent pattern on the chaos that is history. Stories etch grooves deep enough for people to follow in the same way that water follows certain paths down a mountainside. And every time fresh actors tread the path of the story, the groove runs deeper.
Pratchett calls this "the theory of narrative causality," and he is quite correct in noting that in its most extreme form the archetype, or the "story," can have N O T E S
341
a dysfunctional influence on lives. "Stories don't care who takes part in them,"
says Pratchett. "All that matters is that the story gets told, that the story repeats.
Or, if you prefer to think of it like this: stories are a parasitical life form, warping lives in the service only of the story itself."
This is especially true if (1) society invests and entraps an individual in a role — for example, the role of the hero who bathes in blood and gore while slaying the "dragon," and then (2) society cuts the story short and refuses to continue to play its part in the age-old drama/story of the returning warrior.
Which is exactly what America did to her returning Vietnam veterans. But that is a story for a later chapter.
9. Synthesizing various models and variables into a single paradigm may assist in providing a more detailed understanding of the soldier's response to killing circumstances on the battlefield. It may even be possible to develop an equation that can represen
t the total resistance involved in a specific killing circumstance.
The variables represented in our equation include:
• Probability of Personal Kill = total probability of execution of specific personal kill (This is an estimation of the total psychological leverage available to enable the execution of a specific personal kill in a specific circumstance.)
• Demands of Authority = (intensity of demand for killing) X (legitimacy of obedience-demanding authority) X (proximity of obedience-demanding authority) X (respect for obedience-demanding authority)
• Group Absolution = (intensity of support for killing) X (number in immediate killing group) X (identification with killing group) X (proximity of killing group)
• Total Distance from Victim = (physical distance from victim) X (cultural distance from victim) X (social distance from victim) X (moral distance from victim) X (mechanical distance from victim)
• Target Attractiveness of Victim = (relevance of victim) X (relevance of available strategies) X (payoff in killer's gain + payoff in victim's loss)
• Aggressive Predisposition of Killer = (training/conditioning of the killer) X (past experiences of the killer) X (individual temperament of killer) An equation that would permit us to tie in all of these factors and determine the resistance to a specific personal kill would look something like this: Probability of Personal Kill =
(demands of authority) x (group absolution) x
(total distance from victim) x
(target attractiveness of victim) x
(aggressive predisposition of killer)
Let us say that the baseline for all of these factors is 1. A baseline of 1 works well, since in our multiplicative equation this number would be neutral; any factor under 1 would influence all other factors downward, and any factor over 342
N O T E S
1 would interact to influence all other factors upward. Since these processes are all multiplicative, an extraordinarily low factor in any one area (such as .01
in aggressive predisposition) would have to be overcome through very high ratings in other factors. On the other hand, all other factors being equal, an extremely high rating in demands of authority (as seen in Milgram's studies) or a high aggressive predisposition (as would be likely if the killer had recently had a buddy or a family member killed by the "enemy") would result in a high probability of a personal kill or even the unrestrained killing resulting in war crimes and other atrocities.