I agree with pretty much your whole post, except:

Why did we suddenly give a shit about Iraq, a country that hardly anyone in the world cared about prior to 9/11?

One can certainly debate the March to War and the justifications thereto (or about the tie between Iraq and 9/11, but there were a lot more people than “hardly anyone in the world” who cared about Iraq prior to 9/11.

I thought it went along with the concept that all Christians, all law makers, all law enforcement are good by default. They aren’t fallible human beings.

Isn’t that the fallback belief of most Americans?

So, if anyone questions the leaders (who are inherently good and infallible), then they are wrong and bad.

It’s like this idiotic thing that standing up for yourself isn’t nice and is therefore wrong-- especially of you’re female.

It’s a just “shut up and do what you’re told because I said so” mentality.

Expect comments along the lines of ‘Iraqis are killing our Boys every day, so they were only doing it back’…

Les: nothing justifies murder except self-defence

Part of a soldier’s (or any other adult’s) responsibility is NOT to become part of a mindless mob.
I know how easy it is to get caught up in the moment, when fear over-rides and blinds one’s logic, but it’s NEVER an adequate defence in the cold light of day.
I hope we find out what the Sergeant did (or failed to do) when the Lieutenant went down ... how much leadership training did he have?
It’s gonna be nearly as interesting as the aftermath of My Lai.

Post was written by Webs, not by Les.

It might be correct to say; “Nothing justifies murder.” If it’s justified (such as self-defense) then it isn’t murder.

There’s a mindless way in which people follow the president: A blind patriotism of the sort that constitutes weak moral thinking. By that I mean that people’s moral evaluation of the acts undertaken are dictated not by thoughtful consideration but by a kind of blind faith in the leadership. 

Governments (and many other organizations including the military) use a whole host of psychological strategies to get people to follow unquestioningly: Symbols (flags, ribbons) rousing speeches, half-truths, fear, in-group loyalty ("yer either fer us or ag’in us") and so on.

When you’re in an uncontrollable situation and afraid ( and that’s the whole point of terrorism), it is comforting to know that someone else is in control and will protect you, isn’t it? Manipulative? Sure. But very good psychology.

As far as the crime itself goes, if these men are guilty, it is because of a complete failure of leadership.

There’s some pretty interesting psychological stuff that also goes on to get men to kill in war (many people are unaware of the extraordinarily high non-firing rates by soldiers in WWI and II—something rectified in Vietnam).

When at war, the government must have soldiers who fire and kill, and they train them to do so through both physical means (training/conditioning them to fire) and through psychological means (e.g., in-group identification, psychological distancing, de-personalization, vilification of the enemy, denigration of their ideas and culture etc). Leadership fosters and fuels the kind of rage, anger, and blind faith that allows soldiers to do their job.

However, the means used to get soldiers to fire and kill will necessarily make them “culturally insensitive” and it is up to the leadership to constrain and control what they’ve created.

That is not to say that I believe that the men are not responsible for their actions. However, I suspect that the leadership/government will take far less responsibility for whatever occurred than they should.

It seems to me that the government plays a very delicate game both with its citizens and its soldiers.

This isn’t so much about blind_patriotism as it is about America’s younger generations’ growing sociopathic tendencies.

Americans have, unlike prior generations, failed to teach empathy. American youth are wholly unprepared for the world that awaits them, without resorting to the pathology of the “me human, you not” pathology.

It’s a bitter dish long in the making.
America’s youth have become cold, and at best indifferent, and more commonly, mean-natured and hateful of that which is different than themselves.

Shelley: There’s some pretty interesting psychological stuff that also goes on to get men to kill in war (many people are unaware of the extraordinarily high non-firing rates by soldiers in WWI and II—something rectified in Vietnam).

Background reading: Pete Kilner: Military Leaders’ Obligation to Justify Killing in War to their Soldiers

Dof: Post was written by Webs, not by Les.

This seems to be becoming a bad habit. Thankyou for correcting me.
Sorry Webs - a part (a big part) of me forgets that other people also have excellent inputs.
Did I suck hard enough? Did you come?

Shelley: When at war, the government must have soldiers who fire and kill, and they train them to do so through both physical means (training/conditioning them to fire) and through psychological means (e.g., in-group identification, psychological distancing, de-personalization, vilification of the enemy, denigration of their ideas and culture etc). Leadership fosters and fuels the kind of rage, anger, and blind faith that allows soldiers to do their job.

You nut-shelled it.

However, the means used to get soldiers to fire and kill will necessarily make them “culturally insensitive�? and it is up to the leadership to constrain and control what they’ve created.

THAT’S the delicate part.

America’s youth have become cold, and at best indifferent, and more commonly, mean-natured and hateful of that which is different than themselves.

Rob, mate, that’s much too harsh a judgement.
It’s too fucking easy to look at IT from here and cast a judgement.
My heart really does go out to those boys - those poor boys (and I emphasise BOYS - AND I’m not forgetting the victims and their families - aren’t we lucky it’s not happening here?) who got caught up in the moment ... a moment when time stood still.
There but for the grace of god ...
Lucky for me I don’t remember most of my rattier moments.

America’s youth have become cold, and at best indifferent, and more commonly, mean-natured and hateful of that which is different than themselves.

I dunno… I actually agree with Rob here, to some extent. I don’t think hateful is a word I’d use in general; that’s stretching it. I’ll grant that I’m an unusual case, but even in trying to form relationships with people I’ve realized the the stiff competitive pressures on our young people have caused them to abandon a lot of that. Who has time to actually do anything with friends or call their families or… y’know? I also tend to think that our empathy is nurtured through empathetic relationships, so a general lack of them isn’t going to help. There’s just so much more important shit to do now that we have to buy everything in sight.

However, the means used to get soldiers to fire and kill will necessarily make them “culturally insensitive�? and it is up to the leadership to constrain and control what they’ve created.

I’m fortunate that I can still count on one hand the number of military men who’ve worked with me in the past who still can’t hold a job :(

failed to teach empathy

This isn’t exactly true. Empathy is innate (for all but a very, very small minority—thus the high non-firing rate in past wars.) The problem is that we’ve done many things that de-sensitizes people to the feelings and injuries of others unlike ourselves—basically, we train the empathy out of them. We do it on a large scale when we teach men to go to war, but we do it in small ways every day.

The problem for soldiers is that the empathy doesn’t really go away (it is just suppressed and soldiers are conditioned to respond appropriately (by shooting) in combat. However, there are profound consequences for many men afterward (as you alluded to, arc_legion.)

For those interested in the topic, there’s a fascinating book called ‘On Killing: The Psychological Consequences of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by Lt. Col. David Grossman. Well worth the read if you’re interested in this subject.

(Sorry if this isn’t particularly coherent—I’m a bit rushed, but wanted to make the point.)

elwedriddsche, thanks for that link—hadn’t seen it before, but it nicely summarizes Grossman’s work.

Grossman spoke at our university a couple years ago and I went to the lecture.  He was really interesting, though (Les won’t like this) he found today’s video games disturbingly similar to the firing-scenario trainers, both physical and virtual, that the Army uses.  He refers to 1^st person shooter games as “murder trainers”.

Shelley,

thanks for that link—hadn’t seen it before, but it nicely summarizes Grossman’s work.

Actually, I meant to thank you. I “lost” that paper and you gave me enough search terms to go on and find it again.

This isn’t so much about blind_patriotism as it is about America’s younger generations’ growing sociopathic tendencies.

Americans have, unlike prior generations, failed to teach empathy. American youth are wholly unprepared for the world that awaits them, without resorting to the pathology of the “me human, you not�? pathology.

It’s a bitter dish long in the making.
America’s youth have become cold, and at best indifferent, and more commonly, mean-natured and hateful of that which is different than themselves.

It would seem to me that if this were true then violent crime rates would be increasing, when violent crime (including juvenile crime) rates have been dropping nationally for 10 years now.

No prob Lucky John.  I was interested in what kinds of responses I would get from this post.  I think I would agree a lot with what Shelly stated though.  I think we have certainly become de-sensitized, I think I saw my first murder on the big screen when I was about 10.  After that it was about every other week on TV.  Now action movies just make go, ugh.

This isn’t exactly true. Empathy is innate (for all but a very, very small minority—thus the high non-firing rate in past wars.) The problem is that we’ve done many things that de-sensitizes people to the feelings and injuries of others unlike ourselves—basically, we train the empathy out of them. We do it on a large scale when we teach men to go to war, but we do it in small ways every day.

The problem for soldiers is that the empathy doesn’t really go away (it is just suppressed and soldiers are conditioned to respond appropriately (by shooting) in combat. However, there are profound consequences for many men afterward (as you alluded to, arc_legion.)

For those interested in the topic, there’s a fascinating book called ‘On Killing: The Psychological Consequences of Learning to Kill in War and Society�? by Lt. Col. David Grossman. Well worth the read if you’re interested in this subject.

Thanks for the book title, I will have to look into it.

he found today’s video games disturbingly similar to the firing-scenario trainers, both physical and virtual, that the Army uses.  He refers to 1st person shooter games as “murder trainers�?.

I’m torn on this issue, decrepitoldfool. I’d say that Grossman is correct—this is exactly what the military uses to ensure that people fire their weapons. There really is a lot of research that tells us that these games (violent movies, the news etc) really DO reduce empathy, de-sensitize us to violence and condition in a kind of violent response.

On the other hand, (and entirely aside from the fact that I personally enjoy FPS ), the pastoral ideal of a place in which children are not exposed to violence of any sort is just that-- an ideal-- andi itsn’t based on any kind of reality anywhere in the world. (I suspect that for most people violent games don’t matter too much—for a select few, they likely matter a great deal, however.)

It would seem to me that if this were true then violent crime rates would be increasing, when violent crime (including juvenile crime) rates have been dropping nationally for 10 years now.

Not sure about this stat, Benoir. This could be true, but for me to be convinced, I’d need to know that they took into consideration the steady decline in the number of young people as a percentage of the population and that they also took into consideration the aging boomer population. (Violence declines with age.)

The numbers quoted would also only represent crimes in which charges were laid. So where we see a significant increase in things like schoolyard bullying, girl on girl violence (get your minds out of the gutter), it wouldn’t be reflected in the stats.

Just one more point and then I’ll get off my soapbox:

Many things that the govenment does are intended to gain blind compliance from the population. Notice how now that congress is under the gun, Republicans are dragging out the old “Democrats are soft on terrorism” because Dems. want to see some kind of open legal response to prisoners in Guantanamo?

The idea is to trigger a gut level fear-response so that people don’t stop to think. It is a very effective psychological strategy. Blind patriotism. Oh yeah.

Okay, this really is the last thing: Re that article, elwedriddsche, while it does effectively summarize Grossman’s work, the theisis that the military can overcome PTSD by convincing soldiers that their actions are moral seems weak to me.

The author is suggesting more psychological training (i.e., brainwashing) to convince soldiers that their actions are just. This could be effective if soldiers come to internalize (become personally convinced in) what they’ve been told.

However, this requires that soldiers suppress any inclination to think about the issues in a complex way ("just believe what we tell you"), and I suspect that it creates a substantial risk that people will become traumatized when they have the opportunity to re-examine things later.

I don’t believe that brainwashing is an effective innoculation against the psychological trauma of war, and it just might cause people to become cynical and further embittered if they later feel that they’ve been duped.

Apparently crime went up in 2005 after a decade of declines, but it remains low by historical standards.

For something more direcly related to youth, school crime rates in 2003 were about half what they were 10 years earlier.

Talk of the growing sociopathic tendencies of America’s youth reminds me of the justifications for building more supermax security prisons in the 1990s for a generation of ‘superpredators’ that never did appear in large numbers.

Okay, this really is the last thing: Re that article, elwedriddsche, while it does effectively summarize Grossman’s work, the theisis that the military can overcome PTSD by convincing soldiers that their actions are moral seems weak to me.

Mind you, I didn’t say I agree with every word of that paper

The article conflates morality with justification. By and large, we know deep down that killing somebody else is wrong. There are scenarios in which there is justification for it and the moral absolutists go to great lengths to state these exceptions.

Is the taking of a human life always wrong? It’s a simple enough question, but you will get vastly different answers depending among others on the definition of ‘human life’ and ‘taking of a life’. In other words, even the moral absolutists make allowances for situational context. I suppose they could say it’s unconditionally always wrong, but I don’t know anybody who would waive the right to self-defense.

The basic message of the article is that if you work hard enough to justify killing people, you also resolve the moral objections. It’s a bit of a slippery slope, isn’t it?

The military has another problem by having to reconcile two conflicting requirements. They very much want soldiers to obey orders, but they also want them to think on their feet. Too much thinking is dangerous, though, because it might lead to second-guessing orders, interpreting them in self-preservatory ways, or flat out disobedience. I think it was LJ19 who mentioned the term programmed. Problem is, programming and thinking are too likely to conflict with each other.

If I recall what the article said correctly, the U.S. military trains their soldiers to think their way through missions, but also programs them to respond to stimulus. That may be very well, but it also means that if you task these soldiers with a mission that requires a more discrimintory response to stimulus than you trained them for, these soldiers turn into a liability.

I can actually see the appeal of remote-controlled weapons. It’s not just that the controller doesn’t get in the line of fire, but the controller is also divorced from the real-world ramifications - by playing a video game, like. Killing a few innocent bystanders? Too bad, fragged the wrong target. On to the next.

Oddly enough, these questions never bothered me when I did my term in the military. At the time, ours was a defense force only and if we had seen combat, it would necessarily be in response to an invasion.

Anyway, time to get off the soap box.

Then Michael Moore came along with his infamous Fahrenheit 9/11.

Not a Moore fan huh… Yea I hate it when someone uses facts to make the Bush Admin look like idiots too.

I haven’t seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I figure the louder the True Bush Believers scream, the more there is to the flick.

What is most troubling about the Moore film.  It doesn’t take playing fast and loose with the facts to make Bush look bad. Bush has supplied the material within context to do the trick more than adequately.

I haven’t seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I figure the louder the True Bush Believers scream, the more there is to the flick.

Well what gets me is the ones that yell, scream, and say, “It’s all a bunch of bullshit” because it’s a Moore flick.  But when you ask if they’ve seen it you hear a resounding no.  So my question is how can you roll your eyes are say a movie is full of lies, if you have never seen it.