Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing

[tw]

Originally Posted by Crimson Ghost

In a combat situation, there are several ways to neutralize an enemy.

High Altitude Bombing ...
Sniping - ....
CQB - ...
Hand To Hand - ...

This is far from a complete list. Hilter defines another in his book - propaganda. To separate a public both from their troops and the objective of that war. Hilter defines this specifically as as the reason for Britian's success in WWI.

Another is defined by Sun Tzu: deception. He provides many examples such as an army acting as if it has no stomach for war so that the opposition force attempts major mistakes (ie attacking only with light forces or wasting its precious supplies and resources).

Another is superior tactics such as the VC against a superior military power - the US. Strike and run quick. Leave the enemy furstrated to strike and attack jungle and land mines. Example: Khe Sahn and the Tet Offensive, or the so many VC and N Vietnamese victories that later followed later without a single tactical victory.

Military victory - a strategic success - need not necessarily require tactical victories. The US won virtually every battle and yet lost the war. Little people remain as the symptoms of that defeat. 85% of all problems (and accomplishments) are directly traceable to top management. In Vietnam, the US lost because American leadership was corrupt - Nixon and his generals including Westmoreland. The enemy needed very little tactical actions to win. Top management (leaders) need not do the work. Successful leaders empower their people to utilitize best methods by first and foremost defining an honest and clear objective for that conflict. In Viet Nam, the light at the end of the tunnel was fiction because the objectives were fictional. Because the president lied, lives were uselessly wasted. Therein lies the trauma.

Clearly one of the great military leaders of his time was Ho Chi Minh and General Vo Nguyen Giap who demonstrate how to achieve victory. So little did we Americans understand that concept that McNamara and his Vietnamese counterpart nearly came to blows even in a 1990 conference about that war. Understanding the purpose and reasons for war can be that difficult even to the most intelligent and educated minds.

Another example of successful leadership was FDR and Churchill who up front defined the objectives in WWII (unconditional surrender) and the resulting objectives for peace settlements (the political solution). Honest leadership being necessary to obtain victory.

As Gen McAurthur noted, only poor generals use direct assaults (ie WWI France). Therein lies the real trauma of war. The little people are but victims after the fact - the cannon fodder - when leaders are so corrupt as to not do their job - as both Nixon and George Jr demonstrate. This is where the nation (the public) comes in. A nation that has difficulty understanding what is posted here will often sacrifice good people in a foolish war. The sacrifice in war is the trauma. What those soldiers suffer later are symptoms of the real trauma.

War does have a purpose - sometimes (a statement that obviously first requires a perspective). Then cannon fodder is necessary. However the tragedy of a misguided and unnecessary war, and the resulting unnecessary trauma occurs when the leader is so corrupt as to attack a nation that was never a threat (ie Iraq and Vietnam). A leader chock full of historical and intellictual ignorance creates trauma. Again I cite the classic examples - Nixon and George Jr. And again I cite the latest example of how a public can be irresponsible to its armed forces - ie letting George Jr openly lie about the WMD and all but blame Saddam for the WTC attack. Therein lies the real trauma of war. Those suffering soldier years later are but only symptoms of that trauma.

How can you fault a soldier for being bitter when he lost limbs in a war created by a lying president - to liberate people who did not want to be liberated - to free the world of a threat that never existed.