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

To understand a soldier’s psychological and physiological state, the forces of fear, exhaustion, guilt and horror, fortitude, and killing must be considered individually and cumulatively (50). Studies have consistently demonstrated that the fear of death and injury is not a major cause of psychological casualties. Indeed, civilians exposed to life-threatening conditions, such as the fire bombings in Germany and the Blitz in London, did not experience high levels of psychological casualties.

Soldiers fear their inability to meet the obligations of combat. Stress results from the combination of the resistance to “overt aggressive confrontation” (53) and the fear of death or injury from a killer whom they look in the face. Grossman cites the lack of psychological casualties among sailors in the Navy, who do not have to kill anyone directly and are not personally targets; patrols behind enemy lines who are typically ordered not to engage the enemy; and non-killing military on the battlefield who are subject to the same danger of death. If fear alone was responsible for mass psychological casualties, then all these groups would experience them.

Elite troops, such as Army Rangers, undergo brutal training in which they experience a state of “total starvation-enhanced exhaustion” (66). Fewer than half pass this training course. Exhaustion from continuous combat is worse. The weight of exhaustion results from four factors. First, the body is constantly aroused in a fight-or-flight condition. This state causes the body to use all available energy for survival, shutting down other functions like the bladder. Afterward, there is a backlash from the body, and this repeated cycle produces profound exhaustion.

Secondly, cumulative loss of sleep is the norm in combat. Third, there is a reduction in caloric intake from battlefield conditions and a loss of appetite from fatigue. This loss of food is devastating in impact. Finally, exhaustion results from dealing with the elements, such as extreme cold and heat, as well as vermin.

Soldiers are subjected to an onslaught of horror upon their senses. They hear screams, smell death, and taste blood. The psychological impact of these scenes is more impactful on soldiers than non-combatants. Grossman reasons that soldiers feel responsibility for the carnage surrounding them.

It is not simply exposure to danger that causes stress but also the prospect of facing the aggression and hatred of another human being. People dread depredation and domination and prefer to be liked. Grossman cites the high number of psychological casualties among victims of Nazi death camps. Dominated by psychopathic leaders, victims endured “aggression and death on a highly personal and face-to-face basis” (77).

This “wind of hate” (See: Index of Terms), according to Grossman, is often overlooked as a contributor to a soldier’s stress. Indeed, he observes that the potential for personal hatred and aggression is more likely to cause stress than the actuality of impersonal death and destruction. The military uses boot camps, with soldiers treated contemptibly and then given breaks, as a means to prepare soldiers for this factor.

Individuals have a well of inner strength or fortitude that they draw upon to confront stressful events. It is a source of emotional stamina. For 98% of soldiers in sustained combat, this well will have gone dry. A number of stressors will “suck the will and life out of a man and leave him clinically depressed” (83) or a psychological casualty. Great military leaders can sometimes fortify this well of fortitude among their charges. The depletion of fortitude can happen at both an individual and a unit level.

Soldiers are faced with a Catch-22 in combat. If they kill enemy soldiers, they will have lasting guilt, but if a soldier fails to kill the enemy, that soldier will feel guilt for the death of comrades and face “the shame of his profession, nation, and cause” (86).

When soldiers kill, they have deep and lasting pain. Immediate reactions can include vomiting and a feeling of criminality. Soldiers are typically not motivated to kill by ideology, hatred, or fear but by a regard for their comrades, respect for their leaders, a concern for their reputation, and a desire to contribute to the success of the group (89). Later, most soldiers deny such killing to themselves and others. The de-humanization of the enemy and use of antiseptic language allow for such denial. However, the guilt from killing is a significant source of psychological casualties.

Combat leaders, or officers, must love those under their command yet be willing to give orders that will get some of those soldiers killed. For this reason, social barriers are maintained between officers and soldiers. Officers are also given accolades for their combat decisions to assuage their guilt and communicate societal support for their actions.

There is a combination of factors that form the beast of psychological casualties in combat. To fear, exhaustion, and horror, Grossman has added the “wind of hate” and the burden of killing. Particularly in a culture socialized with films, such as Indiana Jones and Rambo, there is a widespread belief that combat and killing can be done easily without lasting impact. Even the field of psychology is not well prepared to help those dealing with the guilt caused by war.

In the American Civil War, a soldier’s first experience in combat was labeled “seeing the elephant” (95). Grossman argues that in the 21st century, the existence of humanity and all life on the planet depend on not just seeing but also “knowing and controlling the beast called war” (95).