Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing

[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.

[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.

[CzinZumerzet]

In addressing the title of this thread I think that observing the after effects of WW2 active service on my father, who later went to the Korean war, and later my two brothers one of whom was grievously injured in N.Ireland and the second in a submarine 'accident', have understandably played a very large part in the development of my pacifist beliefs. All three were damaged physically and psychologically, and neither would have sought or accepted help with the latter even were it offered. Their physical injuries were public knowledge but anything else remains to this day a well concealed family only concern, never brought into life outside home. Terrors, nightmares, rages, for years and years and years. The one and only time I ever heard my father talk with any honesty about his experiences was just after the first showing of Band of Brothers on British TV. He believed profoundly that there was nothing noble about his sacrifice or that of others. The men he killed and maimed were essentially no different to him. There is no doubt the experience haunted his life, which ended recently.

I sometimes enjoy a fantasy which involves world 'leaders' being locked into arenas of combat without their supporting cast of cannon fodder, media advisors or weaponry of any kind. In other words, no money changes hands. I am not sure of the ending though, or rather how to judge the victor, since sheer physical might is not necessarily always on the side of the right.... any thoughts?

[Blue Filtered Light]

tw, I'm not sure, but it sounds like CG might be speaking from personal experience...