Undoing-the-Moral-Character-of-Soldiers

Peace Vet

The Writings of Camillo Mac Bica, Ph.D.

Undoing the Moral Character of Soldiers

Part One

Camillo Mac Bica

It should make you shake and sweat

nightmare you, strand you in a desert

of irrevocable desolation, the consequences

seared into the vein, no matter what adrenalin

feeds the muscle its courage, no matter

what god shines down on you, no matter

what crackling pain and anger

you carry in your fists, my friend

it should break your heart to kill.

Brian Turner

Introduction

“Be kind” is a catchphrase and an admonition we sometimes hear, though probably not often enough in this era of divisiveness and hate. Those of us concerned with peace and justice, with eliminating the evils of war, racism, sexism, poverty, etc., strive to create a human community that is fair and just, populated by compassionate and considerate individuals. To achieve such a goal, it is necessary to cultivate in ourselves and encourage in others an awareness of and adherence to what Neurophilosopher Patricia S. Churchland refers to as the “elemental values,” behaviors and traits of character that, she believes, are intrinsic to the fundamental nature of humankind. According to Churchland, “human morality is formed on a neurobiological scaffold that evolved long ago, originally to promote care of self and offspring.”

Peter Singer elaborates further. In his influential critique of ethics and evolutionary psychology, Singer argues that as our cognitive capacities and reasoning capabilities have evolved with the circle of our moral concern expanding into a consciously chosen ethic—a moral identity—that includes larger groups—extended family, community, nations, families of nations, all humans and perhaps even nonhuman animals as well.

Consequently, humankind has the need and the means to weigh concrete situations to determine acceptable (right) and unacceptable (wrong) behavior. Further, acting in violation of these foundational moral principles precipitates shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem, alienation, etc., what has of late been termed “Moral Injury.” Hence, the importance of maintaining the strength of character and of conscience necessary to ensure compliance with one’s intrinsic moral values.

The Influence of Morality on a Nation’s Ability to Wage War: Battlefield Conscientious Objection (BCO)

Following World War Two, Army historian, General S.L.A. Marshall in his landmark study “Men Against Fire,” after having conducted over four hundred post-combat interviews with infantrymen returning from both the European and Pacific theaters of operation, reported that surprisingly only 15% to 20% of men in battle—even those facing imminent peril—fired their weapons at the enemy. Marshall explained his findings as morally, more specifically, culturally based. According to Marshall a soldier is ultimately:

". . . what his home, his religion, his schooling, and the moral code and ideals of his society have made him . . . he comes from a civilization in which aggression connected with the taking of life, is prohibited and unacceptable . . . The fear of aggression has been expressed to him so strongly and absorbed by him so deeply and pervadingly—practically with his mother’s milk—that it is part of the normal man’s emotional makeup."

Marshall concluded from his findings that,

"It is therefore reasonable to believe that the average and healthy individual—the man who can endure the mental and physical stresses of combat—still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility."

Though some have questioned Marshall’s methodology and, therefore, the accuracy of his “ratio of fire” findings (mainly members of the military protective of their warrior reputation and prowess), ample evidence exists to support the contention that throughout the history of warfare, many soldiers on the battlefield, influenced by morality, have avoided killing their counterparts and at the moment of truth have chosen instead to become what I will term “Battlefield Conscientious Objectors.” Psychologist and former Army Ranger Colonel Dave Grossman is more specific. Like Marshall and Churchland, Grossman maintains that whether by nature or nurture:

"... there is within most men [and women] an intense resistance to killing their fellow man and woman]. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it."

Many National and military leaders and theorists, those I will term “War Apologists,” have interpreted soldiers’ morally based resistance to kill as a threat to achieving their National, political, and military goals through conflict.

"Combat required a sharp break with many moral prescriptions of peacetime society . . . to kill another human being requires of most men [and women] from our culture an effort to overcome an initial moral repugnance."

To remedy this shortcoming, War Apologists have identified and focused upon correcting two main areas of causal concern, moral weakness and a moral misunderstanding regarding the scope and application of the applicable moral principles.

Mitigating the Threat: Creating Soldiers Who Will Kill

Phase One: Building “Moral Toughness”

that young men and women must be morally toughened, and their moral immunity strengthened. Following WWII, to create soldiers who will kill, warrior preparation—Basic Training/Boot Camp (henceforth Basic Training)—was modified to place a greater focus on sophisticated psychosocial techniques of value manipulation, moral desensitization, and psychological conditioning, the goals of which are fivefold.

• First, through a regimen of rigid discipline, ridicule, dehumanization, intense physical, psychological, and emotional intimidation and abuse, late adolescents/young adults—now termed military inductees or recruits—are reduced to an extreme state of helplessness and vulnerability intended to provoke what I have termed elsewhere as "moral identity disassociation and conversion." That is, the destruction of their non-martial moral identity and its appropriate beliefs, values, loyalties, and attributes of character to be replaced by a role-specific moral identity more appropriate for warriors who will kill.

• Second, in truth, few men and women kill or are willing to die for god, ideology, or country. What ultimately motivates soldiers to kill and to die in battle are personal honor, self-respect, loyalty, and accountability to their comrades. Consequently, basic military training seeks the destruction of the recruits' individuality, their autonomy, and fosters, instead, a group identity and esprit de corps—a unit cohesion or brother/sisterhood among warriors. This phenomenon, sociologically termed "grouping" or "crowding," allows as well for the development of a sense of anonymity and group absolution, thereby suspending (at least temporarily) a sense of personal responsibility for their actions. It is, therefore, this conditioning, and the recruits' acceptance of the mythos of being part of a select group of warriors with a proud, noble, and chivalrous tradition that effectively enables them to ignore the ethical limits they would normally place upon the use of violence and deadly force.

• Third, though the military claims not to create automata, most combat-savvy military theorists understand that success on the battlefield requires an immediate and unquestioning response to orders. The old soldier's adage, "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die," certainly captures the reality of military discipline and service in war. To foster a willingness and ability to kill, basic military training, utilizing interminable drilling exercises and Pavlovian inspired stimulus-response conditioning techniques termed “reflexive fire training” programs recruits to respond to orders immediately, automatically, and without question or hesitation.

• Fourth, despite even the most realistic tactical training exercises, killing another human being, as attested to above by Brian Turner in his Poem “Sidiq,” is overwhelming and not something even a “conditioned” soldier can or should easily tolerate and endure. Ben Shalit writes,

"The nearer and more similar the victim of aggression is, the more we can identify with him, the more involved we are, and the less aggressive will be our behavior toward him."

To mitigate, at least temporarily, the innate moral aversion against taking a human life, an important goal of modified basic training is to create “distance" between the soldiers and those they must kill by accentuating (and fabricating) the enemies' cultural, racial, ethnic, and moral differences. That is, to instill in recruits, an abstract perception of the enemy as evil, demonic, subhuman, nonhuman, and socially inferior. J. Glenn Gray, a philosopher and veteran of World War Two writes,

"The typical image of the enemy is conditioned by the need to hate him without limits. . . Most soldiers are able to kill and be killed more easily in warfare if they possess an image of the enemy sufficiently evil to inspire hatred and repugnance."

In Ken Burns’ heralded documentary on the Vietnam War, Marine Veteran John Musgrave, in a firsthand account of his experiences in combat, attests to the level of hatred he felt for the enemy.

"My hatred for [the Viet Cong] was pure…I hated them so much. And I was so scared of them."

Philosopher Shannon French argues for the importance of what she terms the “psychological technique of objectification.”

". . . objectification is a necessary psychological strategy that can both allow them (the warriors) to perform their duties well and also safeguard them from the perils of psychological disintegration."

To the delight of the War Apologists, this new era of modified Basic Training has proven its effectiveness as subsequent studies indicate that the percentage of warriors who fired their weapons at the enemy increased to fifty-five percent during the Korean War and to over ninety percent during the American war in Vietnam. Though I know of no study conducted on post-9/11 warriors, from my conversations with current members of the military and combat veterans, I have no reason to believe they were/are any less lethal.

Phase Two: Military Moral Education. Clarifying Moral Theory as it Applies to War: A Rights-Based Ethical Perspective (RBEP)

To remedy soldiers’ moral misunderstanding, what is alleged by War Apologists as the other important contributor to moral interference with their effectiveness in combat—their ability to kill—soldiers must be educated to properly understand the scope and application of morality that is more appropriate to military service and warfighting. That is, an interpretation of moral principles/obligations that are rights-based and war tolerant, and an understanding of intention as a necessary criterion for moral agency.

Essential to the moral identity of rational human beings is the first order moral principle of respect for persons often identified with, among others, the philosophers Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. Philosopher Robert Holmes explains:

"...any plausible moral theory must have at its center a concern for the lives and well-being of persons. If we do not value persons, including ourselves, there can be no point in valuing other things—not property, possessions, national boundaries, the flag, or anything else. I shall take this to mean at the least, so far as conduct is concerned, that we should minimize avoidable harm to ourselves and others."

Implied by this principle/obligation of respect for persons is the second order principle/obligation of due care. That is, for our purposes, that participants in war not be negligent in discharging their first-order obligation—to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the interests, lives, and well-being of those bearing rights—are protected. These moral principles of respect for persons and due care, the correlatives of inalienable human rights, prescribe (encourage) behaviors and traits of character such as fairness, benevolence, compassion, empathy, and concern for the lives and well-being of other human beings, perhaps of all living beings (the positive duties). Further, except in very specific and clearly defined situations—rights and obligations are not absolute, they are what Philosopher W. D. Ross termed prima facie —such principles proscribe (discourage) right bearers from being wrongfully injured and/or killed (the negative duties).

Under a Rights-Based Ethical Perspective (RBEP), all human beings (at least) possess prima facie rights and as such an immunity against being intentionally targeted/harmed/killed unless and until they act to warrant moral/legal sanctions. Such a perspective on morality is war tolerant in the sense that, under certain conditions such as is satisfied in a just war, the rights of those deemed the enemy may be forfeit or overridden in favor of a conflicting more stringent prima facie right.

For example, should a moral agent violate the rights of another, in this context by prosecuting an act of aggression, genocide, and/or terrorism, that is, by consciously and imminently threatening a right bearer’s life or liberty, the violator’s prima facie rights and immunity become forfeit. Further, the aggressor/terrorist/murderer has become liable, and can, ceterus paribus, be morally injured and/or killed, in theory without remorse, in self/other/national defense, and humanitarian intervention.

The Doctrine of Double Effect

In order to better differentiate acts for which the actor is morally responsible and culpable, i.e., those which are both objectively and subjectively wrong such as to knowingly and intentionally injure or kill a right-bearer, from acts that do not warrant responsibility and culpability, i.e., acts which may be objectively though not subjectively wrong, soldiers must be made aware of the importance of intention to the Doctrine of Double Effect and its relevance to moral agency . In the latter case, soldiers who unintentionally (though perhaps foreseeably) injure and/or kill a right-bearer, subsequently dehumanized as collateral damage, are excused and ought suffer no moral or legal sanctions for their actions.

Fortified by this clarification of the scope and application of morality and moral agency that is war tolerant, should soldiers subsequently face life-and-death situations and decisions on the battlefield, they will be guided by an understanding of morality and moral responsibility that does not require an absolute pacifism, does not prohibit absolutely every use of violence and deadly force. Further, and most importantly, such a war-tolerant morality, it is alleged, should not precipitate Battlefield Conscientious Objection (BCO), a moral hesitation to kill, and/or Combat Related Moral Injury (CRMI).

War’s Existential Reality and Its Impact Upon the Warrior

“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it,” observed General William Tecumseh Sherman and despite this moral clarification and more indulgent moral interpretation, warriors will continue to confront issues of profound moral concern and internal conflict. To soldiers struggling to endure the trauma, devastation, and moral crises they will inevitably experience on the battlefield, war's negative effects are pervasive and cumulative. Everyday living in a war zone is a netherworld of horror and insanity during which morality becomes a liability and atrocity and moral transgression a matter of perspective.

In such an environment, the warrior identity is reinforced, at least initially, and participants suffer further dehumanization and desensitization to death and destruction. Judgments of right and wrong—law and morality—become irrelevant and brutality and atrocity a primal response to the threat of death and injury to self and comrades. Life amid the violence, horror, trauma, anxiety, and fatigue of war erodes moral being, undoes character, and reduces decent men and women to savages capable of incredible cruelty that would never have been thinkable before being conditioned to kill and sacrificed to war. Moral transgressions in such an environment are commonplace and not isolated aberrant occurrences prosecuted by a few deviant individuals as War Apologists would have us believe. Rather, they are intrinsic to the nature and the reality of war, the inevitable consequence of first being conditioned to kill and then enduring the prolonged, life-threatening, and morally untenable conditions of the battlefield. Until such time, therefore, when humankind may recognize war as obsolete, a barbaric aberration, and implement nonviolent alternatives for resolving conflicts and disagreements, war and moral injury are tragic realities that will endure.

Ultimately, the initial success of Basic Training’s conditioning protocols and the “moral clarification” provided by the war-tolerant RBEP, e.g., the increased lethality of soldiers in Korea, Vietnam, and beyond, proves in most cases, however, to constitute an abeyance, rather than the abolition of the soldiers’ moral aversion to kill—the elemental values of their non-warrior moral identity. Consequently, though many may succumb to the social pressures of the military culture and perform effectively in combat, many do not. Instead, they experience moral hesitation, “moral pain”, a refusal to kill and become Battlefield Conscientious Objectors. Others, perhaps even most, either while still in theater or upon their return home, suffer the life-altering shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem, alienation, suicidal ideations, etc., consequent to having transgressed deeply held moral beliefs – Combat Related Moral Injury.

“I fear I am no longer alien to this horror.

I am, I am, I am the horror,

I have lost my humanity

And embraced the insanity of war.

The Monster and I are one...

The Transformation is complete

And I can no longer return.

Mea culpa,

Mea maxima culpa.

Sacrificed at the Altar of the Gods of War

In Part Two of this article, “Sacrificed at the Altar of the Gods of War,” I will discuss the implementation of the Military Master Resilience Training Program intended to “neutralize” residual moral concerns, further “morally toughen” young men and women, bolster warrior "resilience," and reinforce soldiers’ resistance to the influence of morality. Then, after briefly reviewing the moral responsibilities of soldiers in war, I will argue that many military and political leaders, whether from shoddy moral reasoning or a conscious insidious effort to distort law and morality to support a militarist agenda, ignore or fail to take seriously the requirement for a universal application of the critically important guidelines and principles for determining the legality/morality of injuring/killing in war. Finally, I will conclude that such “improved” military training and indoctrination does not, as War Apologists have alleged, facilitate veteran healing or a successful reintegration and transition to normalcy postbellum. Instead, the outcome of such profound interference with the psychological, emotional, and moral development of vulnerable late adolescents/young adults, compounded by the trauma of the battlefield, are individuals exploited for power and profit, their moral characters destroyed, suffering from acute Antisocial Personality Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress, and/or severe Combat Related Moral Injury—America’s sons and daughters made expendable and sacrificed at the altar of the gods of war.

Marshall’s findings identifying morality as negatively impacting warrior lethality—soldiers’ intrinsic reluctance to kill—corroborates Churchill’s supposition regarding “elemental values”, that human beings are not killers by nature, not born killers. To remedy this “deficiency,” this moral weakness, and to ensure an effective military and a viable national defenseWar Apologists have argued

Articles

Comments Welcome