Zat0pek
03-16-2012, 07:53 AM
Had an interesting discussion with colleague recently about the massacre by the U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. The discussion gradually shifted to how combat soldiers view the enemy. As we talked about it, we both agreed that it seems to depend largely on the tactics of the opponent.
For example, I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few World War II veterans and they are roughly equally divided between those who saw combat in Europe and those who saw combat in the Pacific. I've noticed a very consistent pattern: those who saw combat in Europe generally did not harbor intense anti-German sentiment compared to those who saw combat in the Pacific, many of whom continued to harbor an intense, visceral hatred of the Japanese long after the war. While these observations are admittedly hardly scientific, I noticed that the condemnation of the Japanese was often focused on their guerrilla tactics, including kamikaze pilots, with the very strong implication that the Japanese didn't "fight fair". By contrast, those who saw combat in Europe fought a much more traditional war of infantry and aerial combat.
I've seen something similar to this from some Vietnam veterans who faced similar tactics with the North Vietnamese, including using children as soldiers.
This discussion brought to mind a conversation I had with Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor for the Manson family and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, among other books, when I was in law school. Bugliosi was a guest speaker at our annual law journal banquet, and at the time I was interning at the DAs office.
During an informal cocktail hour, I asked Bugliosi if he had ever been threatened or attacked by any of the defendants that he had prosecuted. I thought his response was interesting when he said, "Never. Not once, not even from the most vicious murderers. I believe it was because I was always fair to them. I always played it straight, and made sure that defense counsel was given every stitch of evidence, even evidence that I might not have even been required to turn over. They understood that I was doing my job, and they respected the fact that I was fair, even in prosecuting and convicting them."
So my question is, does the same concept articulated by Bugliosi in criminal prosecution also apply to soldiers in combat? Is the manner in which military enemies view one another largely dependent on the tactics employed by that enemy? In other words, are soldiers who fight a more "traditional" (or "fair") form of combat less likely to develop the kind of rage and even xenophobia which seems to be far more common in soldiers who have to fight guerrilla or terrorist (or "unfair") tactics?
It cannot be overlooked that there is a possible racial or cultural component to this hypothesis. The Nazis were Caucasian and certainly Americans were far more familiar with European culture and history than they were with Japanese culture and history at that time. Similarly, Korean and Middle Eastern culture and history remain far more alien and unfamiliar to most Americans even today than European history and culture.
While those things are almost certainly factors, I believe they are very minor in comparison to the tactics used.
All of this brings me back to the massacre in Afghanistan. We will likely never know the real reasons why this soldier committed these atrocities. He is still unnamed, and information is only coming out in drips and grabs but there are reports today that he was upset over seeing yet another buddy wounded. He saw one of his buddies get his leg blown off just the day before, and he himself had already been wounded twice in three tours. My hypothesis is that combat casualties resulting from guerrilla or terrorist tactics have a much more profound psychological impact on troops that can quickly become a generalized hatred then the casualties resulting from more "fair" combat tactics.
Obviously, none of this excuses the evil and horrific executions carried out by the soldier, but it may provide some context. I doubt my theory is in any way profound but I would like to learn whether such tactics have any impact or effect on the preparation of troops who will be encountering those tactics in combat, and if there are any differences in troop rotation, number or length of deployments or other personnel decisions involving combat against such tactics.
I suppose in the end we all just want to be treated "fairly", even by those who are trying to kill us in combat.
For example, I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few World War II veterans and they are roughly equally divided between those who saw combat in Europe and those who saw combat in the Pacific. I've noticed a very consistent pattern: those who saw combat in Europe generally did not harbor intense anti-German sentiment compared to those who saw combat in the Pacific, many of whom continued to harbor an intense, visceral hatred of the Japanese long after the war. While these observations are admittedly hardly scientific, I noticed that the condemnation of the Japanese was often focused on their guerrilla tactics, including kamikaze pilots, with the very strong implication that the Japanese didn't "fight fair". By contrast, those who saw combat in Europe fought a much more traditional war of infantry and aerial combat.
I've seen something similar to this from some Vietnam veterans who faced similar tactics with the North Vietnamese, including using children as soldiers.
This discussion brought to mind a conversation I had with Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor for the Manson family and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, among other books, when I was in law school. Bugliosi was a guest speaker at our annual law journal banquet, and at the time I was interning at the DAs office.
During an informal cocktail hour, I asked Bugliosi if he had ever been threatened or attacked by any of the defendants that he had prosecuted. I thought his response was interesting when he said, "Never. Not once, not even from the most vicious murderers. I believe it was because I was always fair to them. I always played it straight, and made sure that defense counsel was given every stitch of evidence, even evidence that I might not have even been required to turn over. They understood that I was doing my job, and they respected the fact that I was fair, even in prosecuting and convicting them."
So my question is, does the same concept articulated by Bugliosi in criminal prosecution also apply to soldiers in combat? Is the manner in which military enemies view one another largely dependent on the tactics employed by that enemy? In other words, are soldiers who fight a more "traditional" (or "fair") form of combat less likely to develop the kind of rage and even xenophobia which seems to be far more common in soldiers who have to fight guerrilla or terrorist (or "unfair") tactics?
It cannot be overlooked that there is a possible racial or cultural component to this hypothesis. The Nazis were Caucasian and certainly Americans were far more familiar with European culture and history than they were with Japanese culture and history at that time. Similarly, Korean and Middle Eastern culture and history remain far more alien and unfamiliar to most Americans even today than European history and culture.
While those things are almost certainly factors, I believe they are very minor in comparison to the tactics used.
All of this brings me back to the massacre in Afghanistan. We will likely never know the real reasons why this soldier committed these atrocities. He is still unnamed, and information is only coming out in drips and grabs but there are reports today that he was upset over seeing yet another buddy wounded. He saw one of his buddies get his leg blown off just the day before, and he himself had already been wounded twice in three tours. My hypothesis is that combat casualties resulting from guerrilla or terrorist tactics have a much more profound psychological impact on troops that can quickly become a generalized hatred then the casualties resulting from more "fair" combat tactics.
Obviously, none of this excuses the evil and horrific executions carried out by the soldier, but it may provide some context. I doubt my theory is in any way profound but I would like to learn whether such tactics have any impact or effect on the preparation of troops who will be encountering those tactics in combat, and if there are any differences in troop rotation, number or length of deployments or other personnel decisions involving combat against such tactics.
I suppose in the end we all just want to be treated "fairly", even by those who are trying to kill us in combat.