How do soldiers come to terms with having taken a life in combat? Research has suggested that when people consider themselves to be “good” but are forced to do something “bad” to others, they adopt negative opinions about their victims to rationalize their actions. But according to a new study, this tendency may not apply to soldiers or at least not to those who have served in the Iraq War. American soldiers who have killed in Iraq do not think more poorly of Iraqis than Iraq War soldiers who have not killed—they do, however, think worse of Americans who speak out against the war.
Wayne Klug, a psychologist at Berkshire Community College, asked 68 Iraq War veterans about their experiences, their thoughts on the war and their opinions about Iraqis and Americans. Compared with soldiers who never saw combat and those who witnessed a death but were not involved, veterans who “were directly involved in an Iraqi fatality” were much more likely to consider the war to be beneficial to both countries. The finding is consistent with prior evidence that people tend to value outcomes that require great effort or distress. But although previous research predicts that these soldiers might disparage their victims, investigators were surprised to find that these veterans instead resented Americans whose opinions about the war suggest that their killings may have been unjustified.
This change could be a result of the unique circumstances surrounding the Iraq War. “A clue lies in the political and public nature of a controversial war fought by a volunteer army,” says Klug, who presented his findings in August at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association in Boston. For example, in the Vietnam War soldiers were drafted, and people who avoided serving were viewed with suspicion, he explains. But today the situation is reversed.
“The veterans are aware of their status as the ‘stepchildren’ of polite American society, a sense that’s enhanced by their abysmal treatment upon returning,” he posits. Because America’s decision to go to war was the sole reason these soldiers killed, they “now depend on that policy to justify their actions,” Klug believes. Those who disagree with the policy, then, become automatic enemies.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Soldiers Who Have Taken a Life Defend Iraq War More".
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentUm, JamesDavis, is there a government policy that recruits drug dealers and abortionists? Please don't make the facile argument that the drug war and anti-abortion-rights laws promote these unsanctioned activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoldiers brought up to feel all me are equal and killing is a sin do not want to feel they chose to take a life for no good reason. It's really that simple - that as volunteers, killing was thus their choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas Paine said in The American Crisis IV: Those who expect to reap the blessings of Freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. I would think it natural that those who have chosen to "undergo the fatigue" and have put their own lives at risk resent those who have not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can make an interesting tie in to Lincolns comment during his 7th and last debate with Stephen Douglas at Alton, IL, . . . You toil and work and earn bread, and Ill eat it. . . . Of course Lincoln was talking in a different contextthat of slaverybut the logic is the same; takingbut expectingsomething you didnt earn.
I'll bet if the good Mr. (?) Klug interviewed 68 slaves in 1858 he would have found that they resented their masters.
This only points out the profound sophistry of this war and how needy and indeed desperate, those associated with it are now and will become in the future. As the years go by and Iraq becomes more and more visible as a 19th century resource grab by an oligarchy, the position of being pawns in this play is going to sink in to even the most obtuse. Expect a lot of drunken rage, drug abuse, beaten children and spouses and "going postal" at work. Its a sad, sad tragedy but one that is far from over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd we cannot even speak of the destruction of Iraq and its peoples. And torture as an official government policy never even raised serious opposition by the American people. Nuremberg Trials, how quickly you are forgotten.
"The veterans are aware of their status as the stepchildren of polite American society, a sense thats enhanced by their abysmal treatment upon returning,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very troubling statement that basically draws the conclusions of the entire study into doubt. First off I think it is patently false. It harkens back to the proven myth of people spitting on returning vetrans.
Secondly, if the sample has this perception, couldn't it be just this false perception driving their viewpoint and not whatever happened to them in combat.
Lastly 68 is a very small sample size.
Hmm...don't know if that 'spitting' thing was a myth. My Uncle Larry was in the Vietnam war and he was very upset when he came home and heard the American people calling them baby killers that served there. As for this war, I don't know. Many of them already had an 'attitude' before they even went there. Many have comitted suicide after being there. Sounds like the 'blame' game, but maybe it's the only thing keeping THEM from comitting suicide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbortions are GOD'S will. And drugs like marijuana were made by GOD for man. The subjects are very different than this one. Try harder. ThXs for playing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot every COMBAT VETERAN comes back and beats his wife and kids or go postal! My family has served in almost every war. We come back misunderstood,and alone with nobody to talk to who can relate to what we experienced overseas! " PTSD" We are not bad people, we just want to fit in to society and be accepted for who we are- PATRIOTIC AMERICANS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe never look down on any person who hasnt served! We understand, and dont wish anyperson to go through what we went through. We AMERICAN SOLDIERS make this scrifice of our own free will for our country and its people, to be free and safe at home and abroad! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS AND ALL ITS PEOPLE!
Of course they will. They have to create justification for their actions to soothe their cognitive dissonance. Who wouldn't?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaking a life is traumatic. Especially when you aren't 100% clear on why.
The army is just one big petri dish that is prime for breeding mental instability. On one hand, you have the absolute authoritarian social structure that turns hundreds of individuals into a single minded machine designed by the powers that be for obedience and ruthlessness. Then said machine will drive individuals to do things they normally would not in the name of war. When an individual leaves the machine and see's his/her actions were not consistent with his/her self image, that individual now has to find a reason why such actions can be justified. If not, the person can never think of him/herself the same way ever again.
This is in no way intended to be insulting or demeaning to those in the armed forces. Any private citizen would react the same way in the same situation. Most people go into the service out of a desire to protect family, friends, and country. They put their lives on the line out there and deserve our gratitude for making that sacrifice whether our government directs them with wisdom or not.
This is a war that has shifted greatly since the start. At first, it was a justified mission to seek Weapons of Mass Destruction and get rid of an evil dictator. It didn't take long for those reasons to disappear amid charges of manufactured intelligence. Then the soldiers found themselves in a totally inadequate strategy and routinely being slaughtered while their government seemed to refuse to give them the tools to properly do the job: more soldiers, more and better armor; and a comprehensive strategy for dealing with an insurgency. Then came the problems of reserve and national guard units being forced to return to Iraq for two, three -- five tours. This was not what they signed up for or were prepared to do. Further, many of the soldiers who suffered catastrophic injuries from the Improved Explosive Devices were not receiving the level of care needed. Again, government proved to be totally unprepared for what was supposed to be flowers in the streets. Incidents of atrocities become public: those committed by the "security firms" and US troops. Offenses are launched repeatedly into the same areas and comparisons to Vietnam come from all quarters. And this was all pre-Surge when the cries from the American people was to win it and get out or just get out. Who isn't going to try to grasp onto something to justify existing within a meat grinder. Then, with the application of the surge and counter insurgency strategy and increased operations with Iraqi forces (and living among the populations) they are beginning to see real results. Levels of violence drop and American forces begin to see flowers here and there. Now, all Iraqis are NOT the enemy. They begin to build relationships with some of their trainees and interpreters. US troops are killing bad guys and making Iraq safe for democracy, which helps make the homeland more secure. The original good can clearly be seen, again. There's no longer talk about leaving before the job is done right. Now, what's going through the head of the soldier in Afghanistan? "Why have you forsaken us?"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the findings of this article to be credible. When the Vietnam war was in progress, the pro-war politicians said that the soldiers fighting felt the war was just and that it was important that we continue our efforts. My reply, was that the soldiers had to believe in their cause to effectively fight a controversial battle, otherwise they would suffer psychologically or die due to their hesitation while in battle. I also maintain that this exemplifies why a country cannot base its war time decisions upon the opinions of its soldiers or veterans. A country that does so would be adapting the methods of a military state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Vet I dont look down on those who choose not to serve. I look down on those who choose not to serve and criticize those who do. By definition they have no clue what they are talking about. Ignorance is not bliss my friends. War is not pretty, neat, and never follows rules. Especially when you are not dealing with a government that can be called into account for it's actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will almost always find intelligence that goes both ways. Most of the credible intelligence available before the war indicated that Sadam Hussien had weapons of mass distruction. Not just our intelligence, which some have made alligations was contrived, but many other foriegn intel communities also believed it including the UN. We knew he had them after the first war. I personally saw them. He was mandated as a condition of the cease fire to destroy AND provide proof of the destruction of his WMDs. He never complied with the latter and never admitted to the former. Sadam himself said that he chose to conceal wether or not he still had WMDs because he didn't think anyone would do anything about it but if his neighboring countries (Whom had good reason to hate him for his own multiple invasions) found out he was without his WMDs he feared they might attack. All that was fine I guess until September 11th. The world changed that day and he didn't change with it. He still played his shell game with the UN inspectors about his WMDs. He still offered money to the families of suicide bombers who targeted US and Israeli targets. HE never changed his rhetoric. Given his history, his rhetoric, what we knew for certain about his support for terrorism in general reguardless if it was Al Queda in particular, the possibility of his having WMDs, and the credible intelligence of the time which later proved wrong. The US was perfectly justified in going to war. Now the fact that the credible intelligence of the time was incorrect may be a sticking point in the moral compass of your average soldier and need some justification. Personally I justify it as Sadam's own fault. Now others point to the Abu Grav and Blackwater scandals as inditements against the war. As I said earlier war is never neat or pretty. Atrocitites are almost always commited by both sides. That doesn't excuse either one and the moral compass of our country is on track as proven by the fact that we hold these people accountable for their actions rather than try to cover them up or justify them.
Studies like this, with an agenda, are hardly valueble and faciciously deceptive. Thank a Vet
Just wanted to remind everyone that no war has ever been declared against any country under the administration of George W. Bush Jr. Remember, the 'War in Iraq' or the 'War in the Middle East' aren't actually wars...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, people, that no war was ever declared against any country under this bush administration. Thus the 'War in (iraq, the middle east, afghanistan, pakistan, iran, et cetera)' are not actual wars, but rather civil disputes that our army/navy/marines/etcetera sat in on. And with the recent mumbai attacks, I hope I don't need to remind anyone how our 'war on terror' is going...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are only justified in going to war if we actually declare war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this