Morality Shot

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

With the recent outrages in Iraq, with Iraqis being tortured by American soldiers (definitely) and British soldiers (probably), I have been wondering whether it is possible to maintain one's morality in the armed forces. I would say that it probably is, but not if you've ever shot anyone dead. I hope I will never be placed in a situation when I have to go to war, but I can't help thinking that if a person kills somebody then their morality is automatically shot too - once they have crossed this barrier then they no longer have the same inhibitions and feel that there's nothing stopping them do anything, which may account for some of the horrendous reports we have been hearing. What does everyone else think abt this?

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 8 May 2004 09:06 (twenty-one years ago)

now, I'm no expert in psychology, so if anyone could point me in the direction of any books or web resources on this subject I would be quite interested, thanks.

also quite surprised to see there isn't an ILE category War, I've put this under Politics pro tem.

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 8 May 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I certainly can't speak from experience either, but I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the whole "well, war is hell - it makes people do things in desperate situations they wouldn't normally do" reasoning for the Iraq tortures. I kinda doubt that the men and women in those pictures were ever in the "front lines" over there, and how many of them have actually killed anyone? Again, I'm just making guesses here based on their rank/role at the time. Look, if they were caught up in some serious hardcore nasty face-to-face shit on a constant basis, I can see them losing their grip on morality after a while. But some of these soldiers were just on 'watch duty' - a far cry from Vietnam.

Soldiers in Vietnam had far less training, experience, and preparation - and they were suddenly thrown into the jungle where every step was filled with the uncertainty of death, not to mention the extreme nasty shit the soldiers saw on a daily basis. To me, that's the kind of 'war is hell' input that could put someone over the edge.

I'm not saying the soldier who sees 'nasty shit' is justified for acts of immorality, but I can at least appreciate the psychology of the decision process. These folks in Iraq - I just can't see how it happened. Maybe they were just horrifyingly bored?

Please school me if I'm being stupid about the soldiers in these pictures - maybe they were in prison camps or had their freinds butchered in front of them or something...

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Saturday, 8 May 2004 09:24 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, I have been hearing the news on this subject in such superficial detail that I wasn't sure whether the ppl who did the torturing had been on thefront line or not. But it seems to me that there are two other possible reasons why they may have done it - being bored isn't really a serious realistic one.

1) they were horrible, sadistic people to start with. It's not easy for us to know one way or the other. One of the ludicrous aspects of news reporting is that we always get the interviews with the folks back home who tell us what loving, reliable, morally upstanding ppl they were. Like, what else are they supposed to say. "Yeah, well I always knew he was a bit of a bastard".

2) they *were* decent enough people but army training has turned them into ppl capable ofd carrying out these vile deeds. Which has elements of my Evil vs Angry thread here I suppose: soldiers are trained to regard their enemy as evil, if not actually sub-human to give them the vitriol they need to fight against them effectively.

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 8 May 2004 09:37 (twenty-one years ago)

My only direct experience with anyone who has been in the 'armed forces' is with my uncle, who served in Vietnam. He died a few years ago from cancer related to the use of 'agent orange' there.
He was one of those naturally quiet, kind and reserved people, and I wonder at times just how someone like him managed to cope with what he must have witnessed there, as he was in a 'special unit' that dealt with some awful shyte ( apparently ).
To my knowledge he never changed in any noticeable personality form once he returned home, even when he continued in the service of the Army. He did return home a chronic alcoholic, however, and he told me that they were freely given alcohol and encouraged to drink as much as possible.

I just can't understand how anyone could justify the behaviour recently displayed, guesses can be made maybe as in : yep they were arseholes to start with and went mad with the whole 'power trip' ...or maybe yeah the Army schooled them to the degree that they did ( do ) really believe that their so-called enemy is less than human and can be treated so badly for what passes as fun.
I don't get it either.
Is it a twisted and extreme version of anti-east feeling, in opposition to the hatred of 'the west' that we hear so much about?

― donna (donna), Saturday, 8 May 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I want to add that as far as I know, my uncle never related any tales of atrocities committed by him or his unit during his time in Vietnam.
This doesn't mean they never did anything bad or awful, however.

― donna (donna), Saturday, 8 May 2004 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Achilles dragging the body of Hector past the tomb of Patroclus to thread.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 8 May 2004 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm inclined to think that the opportunities for violence and brutality in the armed forced might be likely to attract people with these bad tendencies (not just these people, obviously). Add in dehumanising training and regimentation, add an enemy that they are encouraged to hate and regard as subhuman, add in some general provocation (stone throwing and abuse), and I think it becomes just about comprehensible.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 8 May 2004 12:28 (twenty-one years ago)

It looks a bit like a perversion of some pretty dodgy interrogation techniques that have been imported into the prison. In other words the conditions were set further up the chain of command by removing the sort of oversight that usually applies, and the guards have had some direction to apply certain psychological pressure (i.e. mild torture) techniques.

What you see in those photos doesn't happen without someone higher up the chain telling the soldiers to do something like it. Beatings might happen by some rogues, but not this. There are pressure techniques that special ops type people do that involve sexual humiliation.

― plebian plebs (plebian), Sunday, 9 May 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm guessing that a few of these people were your average high school bullies with a sadistic streak who found themselves in a situation where they were perhaps encouraged to put their bullying skills to use in breaking the prisoners. The others who were weaker went along, happy to be part of the victorious, invincible side and feel some camaraderie with their mates. I unfortunately don't think this type of sadism is at all uncommon, it goes on every day across this country and around the world, and it's usually not called torture. Even though it is, even in less incendiary settings.

― Gear! (Gear!), Sunday, 9 May 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

― plebian plebs (plebian), Sunday, 9 May 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Have you heard of the Milgram experiment? According to it, in an academic laboratory setting a lot of ordinary people could be conduced to obey orders to do things that they were told would be harmful to another person.

According to the articles so far, whenever anyone questioned abusing the Abu Ghraib detainees, they were always told "Military Intelligence says to do this." I'm appalled at what happened, but "orders" of this sort must be even easier to follow in the circumstances the troops over there are facing right now.

― j.lu (j.lu), Sunday, 9 May 2004 02:21 (twenty-one years ago)

my high school friend t.
resigned his commission in
iraq last year. he's home.

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Sunday, 9 May 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

You'd think there would be extensive training for soldiers to keep their morality, or at least there should be.

― A Nairn (moretap), Sunday, 9 May 2004 05:09 (twenty-one years ago)

But, in reality, I think the army pushes the following of orders and lower ranking soldiers are not suppose to be making their own decisions or considering their own morality. They have to ignore it, to follow the orders. It could be the people giving the orders that are lacking morality, or it could be across the line communication something is exaggerated.

― A Nairn (moretap), Sunday, 9 May 2004 05:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I have close friends who have served in the regular army, though not in combat, and the stories they tell me about the general "we're all rough tough BLOKES" mentality amongst their colleagues and superiors has left me somewhat unsuprised this stuff would go on. The army trains people to be desensitised, to kill if they have to, and above all to take orders without question (though on that last point Ive been told it isnt always so black and white). In a bad situation it wouldn't be a big step from this to what we've been seeing, especially in someone already morally or psychologically flaky.

Also, I keep thinking about the media immediately after 911 and how many of the general public were frothing at the mouth to "kill the towelheads". I don't doubt some of those people thought signing up to go hunt them some ay-rabs would be the best thing to do.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 9 May 2004 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course having said all that I think it is really disgusting and sad it happens at all, I should make that clear.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 9 May 2004 06:02 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.