Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
Desertion is a big umbrella with a myriad of reasons for it. Some have been known to desert because they got a Dear John/Jane letter from their romantic interest back home. Cowardice in the face of the enemy; however, has even been the subject of televised ethics debates with distinguished panelists (e.g. Supreme Court Justices, war correspondents, lawyers, human rights activists, first echelon military combat officers ... etc. all on the same panel).
The reasons for desertion under fire are fewer. They run along the lines of undiagnosed predisposition to panic attacks, mental fatigue and sense of doom, nervous breakdown ... etc. Most everyone experiences fear in combat; but, that can usually be overcome by peer pressure and training to the point where reactions to danger become reflexive.
The consensus; however, is that the damage done by someone turning and running in the face of the enemy is so great (demoralizing friendlies and emboldening enemies in addition to resulting immediate loses) that this umbrella is labeled cowardice and all those caught in the act will be shot by their own regardless of etiology because the damage is all the same. That can be the only way to make the spot correction under those circumstances. It isn't human nature to put the mission and other lives at risk to sort out why someone turned and ran; or, to try and figure out if they will fire on friendlies to get away.
|
*nods*
There's been some really interesting stuff done on the psychology of desertion. Particularly for the modern era.
I know far more about desertion in the 18th/early 19th centuries though :P
One of the things that is quite striking about the scholarship though is the apparent degree of similarity of motive and incidence across different time periods and different army types.