Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing

[DanaC]

That's intriguing tw.

[lookout123]

did you ever serve tw? that's not an insult.

the reason i ask is that most of the guys i know are fairly open about it. not in proud or gloating manner, but just in a factual, relating the facts sort of way. but now that i think about it, things like that never are discussed around civilians... maybe it's just a concern that civilians would never understand, so they don't want to open themselves to judgement.

i'll have to ponder that one.

[Troubleshooter]

One of the things about combat also is the context of the combat.

Shooting somebody, stabbing somebody, bombing somebody, and launcing a torpedo at somebody are all different and I think they require a different form of detachment.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

did you ever serve tw?

Never served. Almost joined George Jr in the Reserves.

In those days of and after Vietnam, most who came back never did talk. But after the movie Apocolypse Now, suddenly many started talking. Apparently that movie was close enough to reality that some who did serve felt others would understand the conundrum that was Nam.

I have seen same with some WWII vets. Got enough information to know their units were probably fully involved. But they talk as if their service was entirely patrol and guard duty.

[LSMFT]

Well it's a funny time to bring this up, and I've just been in a recent fight, but I remember every incident in my life where harm has been inflicted. I've come to regret every act of violence in my life, and I could not imagine anything more than broken noses or hurt feelings. I cannot believe or pretend to understand the horrors that happen in war, and I know from personal experience that soldiers aren't exactly prepared for them either. This time, we should consider all the victims of a senseless war we let happen. Maybe this time we'll get the bastards who started it.

[wolf]

My uncle is that way about movies about the Korean War.

I had a friend who was a Vietnam Vet who went to all those movies on purpose ... he found it a useful way of getting over/past some stuff, and he'd talk it out with my friend Howard and I afterwards.

His favorite was Full Metal Jacket. He said it was closest.

[DanaC]

Saving Private Ryan was horribly realistic.....Except for the total lack of any European soldiers in France :P

[xoxoxoBruce]

Except for the total lack of any European soldiers in France :P

Uh,..well,...I saw Germans. But you're right, no French.

[jaguar]

The thing that always gets me about it all is jsut the sheer fucking insanity of it all. I think that scene in SPR where they guy sits down for a smoke, brings down the wall and suddenly they're face to face with a squard of german troops, the bit where having made it to the shingle a bullet skims off the guy's hat and he takes it off for a second..and gets his brains blown out...just so fucking random.

The other thing that gets me is there was an age when kings and princes led armies into battle, swords first. We need to bring that back.

[jane_says]

Certainly. Any war worth citizens dying over is important enough for leaders to fight in themselves. We'd be more selective and less likely to fly off half-cocked every time someone pisses us off, otherwise known around my house as "picking your battles".

I believe than anyone who has the authority to order us into battle and risk losing our lives has the obligation to be ready to do the same.

[tw]

Originally Posted by jane_says

I believe than anyone who has the authority to order us into battle and risk losing our lives has the obligation to be ready to do the same.

Its called nuclear war. Even then, Curtis LeMay was cock sure he could get us into that war. One must understand the "Missiles of October" or even better, see McNamara's "Fog of War" movie that was just recently released. Some who even have the most to loose will still strive to create war. And LeMay was no dummy. He was probably the most competent general in the Air Force in that generation.

[jane_says]

I don't understand what you mean. What's called nuclear war?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think he's refering to when the leaders put themselves in jeopardy, also.

[tw]

Originally Posted by jane_says

I don't understand what you mean. What's called nuclear war?

You posted

I believe than anyone who has the authority to order us into battle and risk losing our lives has the obligation to be ready to do the same.

When does leadership sit at risk just like everyone else? Its called nuclear war. In the World Wars, leadership sat back and sent cannon fodder into the trenches, into frontal assults, and into other continents to 'die for victory'. Leaders were only at risk if they lost the war - not the battle. Nuclear war changed all that. In a nuclear war, the leadership is again on the front lines with everyone else. Suddenly leadership is more willing to seek a political solution rather than a military one. Suddenly leadership is willing to stand up to those extremists who would solve everything using the Tim Allen concept of "more power".

What is the purpose of war? To put the conflict back on a negotiation table. It can be accomplished two ways. First is to fight the war until one emotion is replaced by another. Second is to scare the leadership on both sides with the consequences of that war. But the bottom line remains same. The leadership eventually must be forced back to the negotiation table. The only difference is how much the cannon fodder suffers.

Unfortunately we cannon fodder types are slow to demand courage of our leaders. For example, it was becoming obvious to 1966 and 1967 American leaders that the war in VietNam was completely wrong. But American leaders did not have the balls - could not rise up and end it. In the meantime, we potential cannon fodder types really never bothered to learn how stupid our leaders were for 5 more years. Cannon fodder is typically that slow to learn when their leaders are liars. In that 5 year period, the number of dead more than doubled.

Its easier to send cannon fodder to death than it is to have balls. Leaders sometimes must be at personal risk before they will act as responsible leaders. ie Japan after two nuclear bombs. One example of couragious leadership was the Cuban Missile Crisis - when leadership on both sides was smart enough to use intelligence and experience to understand inconclusive and misleading intelligence and to challenge the extremists. Therefore leadership did not kill us all. And yes, virtually none of us would be here today had Kennedy, McNamara, and Krushchev not put those extremists war mongers back in the bottle.

It takes major courage to not go to war until the smoking gun actually exists. When a leader is on the front line, then sometimes the emotion called fear can provide that courage. Courage to do what the logical mind always knew was necessary.

[Crimson Ghost]

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

High Altitude Bombing - Easy to go to sleep that night, for you never see the enemy closeup.

Sniping - Picking off an enemy at distance is a little harder, as you see the clothes he wears, the way he walks, the way his hands move when he talks, the tilt of his head.....

CQB - Close Quarters Battle - this involves "sweep and clear" objectives that don't give you time to focus on the fallen, just keeping youself and your team alive while finishing the job. You don't tend to remember faces of the dead. Grenades are your friends.

Hand To Hand - This is the most difficult to forget. You don't forget the smell of the enemy when you're this close. The sounds he makes at the moment of death WILL stay with you until you die. You just have to cope with it. Every night you will think of it, and every day you will try to forget it.