On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

LTC Grossman has laid it out in a comprehensive look at the ability to handle killing in the face of the enemy.

As a police officer we spend many hours in various forms of training. Some of this training is dedicated to the rules surrounding the use of our department issued firearms. Some of this training is dedicated to the physical skill of firing this weapon. None of the training is dedicated to what you go through after having actualy used this weapon against another human being in self defense. The extent of my departments response was...absolutely no critical incident debriefing and my appointment with the department phycologist occured 9 days after the shooting. The evaluation by the physcologist last 23 minutes total. At that point I knew that my well being was up to me to provide for. After some research I located this series of books by Dave Grossman. Purchasing these books was the best thing I could have done for myself. The information within these pages helped me understand all the stages of emotion that I was, and still am, going through. I would recommend these books to anyone in the military or in lawenforcement (or any family memeber there-of). They may very well have saved my sanity.

Grossman, D. (1996). On killing. NY: Back Bay Books. To read Grossman's gripping study of killing in a military environment requires a degree of courage from the readers. In fact, those Vietnam colleagues who are not travelling well may be better off not reading this book for it peels back the psychological layers of training to kill, and then the guilt that has been generated from being part of the harvesting of the body count. Importantly, the author recognises that Vietnam was different, for a variety of reasons, to any other war that we have fought. Grossman has impeccable credentials. He rose from the rank of private to lieutenant colonel and served in the 82nd Airborne, 7th Infantry Division and the U.S. Rangers and as a psychology professor at West Point. After the Second World War, the British and Americans studied the phenomenon of non-firers. American studies confirmed that in battles only 15-20% of the troops shot to kill. In some situations where several riflemen were together firing at the enemy, others in the group would take on supporting roles (getting ammunition, tending the wounded etc.). There was a conspiracy of silence over the non-firers and those involved in a conspiracy to miss, even when their lives were endangered. The British confirmed that among the Argentinean troops in the Falklands, there was a similar rate of non-firers. However, by the time of the Vietnam War, training techniques had been changed and the firing rates were around 95%. Herein lies the root of the problems faced by Vietnam veterans. As a result of the non-firing data, training methods were re-designed to remove the moral dilemma of taking human lives. Recruits were trained to shoot body shaped targets, not bullseyes and recruits were rewarded for "kills". At Puckapunyal (Recruit Training), recruits for Vietnam were instructed to aim for the chest, so if the enemy doesn't die they become a burden for their medical support teams. Bayonet training, which had probably remained unchanged for over 100 years, was designed to massively damage the enemy soldier's abdominal-thoracic region with a steel instrument possessing two specifically designed blood grooves. And, as the RDI said, "If you are unlucky enough to bayonet the enemy in the head and can't get your bayonet out, discharge a round and it should split the head open." In, out, on guard! Kill, kill! The NCOs' and officers' jobs in combat remain to get the troops to kill. I cannot agree with Grossman's observation that British officers do their jobs better because of the class distinction between themselves and their men, which allowed them to make more objective decisions (p. 168). The "fragging" phenomenon in Vietnam occurred because of this perceived officer indifference to the suffering of the troops. Killing another human being is not a natural act, contrary to what the movies would have us believe. Grossman argued that only 2% of the troops are natural killers (psyc

ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing. Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's

I am a reporter. Most people would expect me to deny Lt. Col. Grossman's findings, pertaining to violence in the media, as sensationalist and misleading since I should know where my bread is buttered.I admit, I was skeptical, but during research for an article on violence in the schools, I came across the colonel's book, "On Killing". After reading it, I became a convert.The comparison of the military's usage of operant and classical conditioning techniques with the psychological effects experienced by juveniles when they observe violence - or participate in it, in the case of interactive shoot-'em-up video games - was quite enlightening. Col. Grossman brought a fresh perspective to the debate and convinced me to rethink my original opinion.Of course, his theory wouldn't hold unless he could prove that humans, by nature, are unable to kill other human beings unless trained and psychologically conditioned to do so. I believe he did prove this point.Simplistic solutions such as instituting media criticism courses, turning off the TV or banning guns won't stop the killing because they don't get at the core psychological problems and they don't address the enabling factors that are co-conspirators in juvenile violence.Listen to this man.

Dave Grossman has written perhaps one of the most insightful books on what motivates men in combat since S.LA. Marshall's "Men Against Fire". Grossman combines the thoroughness of an learned psychologist with the practical viewpoint of a lifetime dedicated to military service. He provides us with a unique and truly fascinating look into the dark and often terribly painful mental process that brings a man to pull the trigger and kill his fellow man. As an officer in the Army, I consider this book an essential read for anyone who may someday bear the burden of leading men in combat. We often get such a distorted view of remorseless killing from the popular media that most of us are shocked to discover that the act of killing a man at close range is something that very few soldiers are capable of. In a similar fashion to S.L.A. Marshall, Grossman demonstrates with overwhelming evidence how the vast majority of soldiers are tremendously reluctant to kill, frequently prefering to risk their own death instead. The book offers such a profound and important perspective on the nature of warfare at the human level that I suspect it will some day be part a curriculum for training officers and non-commissioned officers on combat leadership. Although the book's primary focus is on the nature of killing in warfare, his conclusions have relevance for anyone concerned with the problem of violence in society. One of Grossman's most useful conclusions is the suggestion that virtual reality video games allow their users to overcome the natural reluctance to kill by gradually desensitizing the mind to violence. This erosion then makes it easier for those who are pre-disposed to aggressive violence to act on their desires in a violent way. With the recent string of high school shootings, Grossman's hypothesis has immediate relevance to current social issues. In fact, he has been a frequent commentator on these tragedies with several national news networks. In summary, Grossman's book peers cautiously into the darker side of man's nature to understand what drives him to kill in combat. What he finds there is vastly different from what we are taught to expect- simply that the vast majority of people are unable to look a fellow man in the eye and kill him even if his own life may be at stake. The forces that allow him to overcome that reluctance in the heat of battle include peer pressure, leadership, training, and physical distance and are examined in great detail.