Killing Dave Grossman\'s Book \"On

¶ … Killing

Dave Grossman's book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" deals with the psychology of killing during warfare. One of the chief theories he wants to express through the document relates to how humans have a native instinct that makes them reluctant to kill. This instinct is disable during combat, given that the fighting environment prevents one from acting rationally and the military generally presses soldiers into being less receptive to their inborn resistance to take the life of a human being. Considering the impact such a writing leaves on those who read it, it is likely that war combat veterans would have a better perception of warfare and of all the factors involved consequent to going through the manuscript.

Those in charge of the military are also probable to learn something from reading this book, as it speaks about the aftermath manipulation leaves behind it, and about how human beings are permanently affected after they kill. Even though a great deal of individuals don't fire a single shot during warfare, the fact that they are instructed to commit murder at the slightest chance they get triggers a feeling of responsibility for the crimes others perform, making it more likely for them to feel guilty for the role they played in the war.

Grossman appears to be less interested in the general case involving soldiers who were influenced in losing some of their most basic instincts, as he particularly speaks about conditions during the Vietnam War. As they prepared to go to war, Americans were taught that it had not been abnormal to kill, and that particular circumstances justify this act. One can virtually say that soldiers were desensitized and left with the feeling life had little value in time of war. During training missions, bull's-eyes were actually replaced with human-like shapes, so as for soldiers to become accustomed to shooting at real-life individuals as if this had been part of a training exercise. While numerous soldiers were expected to be uncomfortable with shooting at targets that resembled real humans, matters gradually changed, given that after several training exercises it seemed perfectly normal to shoot at something that could have just as well be a human being. Soldiers were taught that it had not been a human being they were shooting at, but that it had been the enemy, someone who bears no name and has no face, as he or she is simply preventing them from successfully finishing their task.

According to Grossman, the Vietnam War is liable to take the first place for wars involving the best trained killers the world has ever seen. It was almost as if American soldiers were efficient killing machines, with their emotional side having been turned off by their leaders. Even with the fact that there were numerous wars fought by extremists who would stop at nothing from achieving their purpose, the Vietnam War is different. This difference stands in the fact that American soldiers were manipulated in believing that what they did was rational, and that there was nothing unusual about killing other people, considering that their main role as warriors was to complete missions.

While the Americans in Vietnam carried out their tasks courageously, it would seem uncharacteristic to condemn them for what they did back there, given that it is normal for communities to perform a purification ritual, through which warriors are absolved of any crime they may have committed. However, this did not happen in this case, as soldiers were instead harshly criticized for their participation in the war. The fact that their own community had rose against them for what they believed was their role as U.S. citizens has had a terrible effect on American war veterans who fought in Vietnam.

Surely, one of the best methods of preventing physical and psychological war traumas would be to prevent wars. However, when there is no other option than to commit warfare, psychology is essential in preparing individuals for battle. Contemporary fighting techniques have progressed greatly, but matters are still critical when considering military training in regard to killing, given that soldiers are provided with through teachings regarding conflict-related situations, but the taking of human lives is seldom brought into question, with military leaders professing about how it is natural to kill in decisive moments.

Most Americans who fought in the Vietnam War are to this day unable to understand what they did wrong. Grossman comes to their assistance, explaining how it was not necessarily their fault that the nation was unsupportive toward the war, but that there were a series of factors involved in the event. Firstly, most of them were not offered the opportunity to use instinct in the conflict, considering that they were largely commended by their leaders, who would not allow ration to interfere with orders.

It was extremely difficult to be a part of the Vietnam War, as everyone was involved in the killings that took place there, regardless if they were medics, drivers, or hardened soldiers taught to let nothing stand in their way. Vietnam War veterans were denied the chance to a cool-down period during which they could contemplate on the events they were part of and being partially cured by the feeling of guilt they had through group therapy. People involved in the Vietnam War still have a difficult time getting over their past, since it haunts them and their community mostly everywhere they go.

Today's wars involve less physical casualties, but the psychological impact is far greater than most people imagine. Being a psychological casualty is disastrous, as one has their perception in regard to themselves, to life, and to society changed. Grossman has even invented a term for the psychology of killing-killology. The author recounts the case of police officers, who are similarly taught to do their jobs without hesitation, but who receive little to no training regarding how it is natural to kill. As a result, they are in most extreme conditions uncertain if it is right to kill someone, even if that respective person poses a threat to society.