Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(162)
4 star:		(42)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become blasé towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

As a police officer we spend many hours in various forms of training. Some of this training is dedicated to the rules surrounding the use of our department issued firearms. Some of this training is dedicated to the physical skill of firing this weapon. None of the training is dedicated to what you go through after having actualy used this weapon against another human being in self defense. The extent of my departments response was...absolutely no critical incident debriefing and my appointment with the department phycologist occured 9 days after the shooting. The evaluation by the physcologist last 23 minutes total. At that point I knew that my well being was up to me to provide for. After some research I located this series of books by Dave Grossman. Purchasing these books was the best thing I could have done for myself. The information within these pages helped me understand all the stages of emotion that I was, and still am, going through. I would recommend these books to anyone in the military or in lawenforcement (or any family memeber there-of). They may very well have saved my sanity.

LTC Grossman's book is highly overrated by far too many readers. His book does offer some valuable information on the combat efficiency of people over time on the modern battlefield. There is also some excellent insight into post-traumatic stress disorder. He suggests that in the past soldiers had more time to reflect and examine their experiences before returning to peaceful lives back home. Either armies had to march home, which could take days if not weeks, or they had to take a ship, which could take a similar amount of time. Our current policy of rapid reintroduction of soldiers just out of a combat zone as a cause of problems today is an important one.

The rest of his book, however, is flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt. To begin with, he takes modern assumptions and assigns them to all eras and epochs of the past, as if people of the past all have the same outlooks and reactions that we do today - they just wore different clothes. His assumption that people are somehow inherently predisposed not to kill each other and only do so with great mental conditioning leading to psychological harm flies in the face of the obvious lessons of history. A reading of history suggests our ancestors often waged aggressive and enthusiastic war with little trouble. Even more importantly, they did not need video games or death metal to encourage them to do it. The society and its views of war, I think, has more to do with reactions of soldiers than any innate mental disposition.
Some items he mentions show a poor understanding of practical matters. He suggests that centurions simply stood around encouraging their soldiers to fight, while a student of Roman warfare would recognize that the centurions were often in the thick of the fighting and doing so by fighting. They often led just as much by example as by shouting orders. The author also asserts that the reason thrusts with a sword are not used much is related to some psycho-sexual mental block. This only proves he has little concept of weapons through the ages, not to say the fact that he has never seriously used one. He also fails to comment on the development of specialized thrusting weapons in the late middle ages or the development of rapiers. That these weapons were used for several hundred years and thrusting the accepted technique for inflicting damage shows a poor understanding of swords, not to say weapons of the past in general. I wonder how he addresses the spear, the most common weapon for thousands of years?

Even more troubling is his use of SLA Marshall's work Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command to justify many of his positions. He quotes Marshall's famous firing rate: less than twenty-five percent of a unit would engage in combat with the enemy. The first problem is: He ignores Marshall's reason for this occurring. Marshall felt a lot of this had to do with the way soldiers were trained - only to fire their weapon if they could see a target. In modern war, a target is not always visible, hence the soldiers did not shoot when shot at. The soldiers who did shoot often were armed with BARS, machine guns, flame-throwers, etc. That is weapons that are meant to be used against an area as much as against individual targets. The second problem is that recent research has suggested that it is very likely Marshall simply made up this figure. His methodology was more focused on recreating the battle experience, not obtaining specific pieces of information for statistical purposes. With doubt cast on Marshall's firing rate, doubt has to be cast on LTC Grossman's conclusions and arguments which stem from it.

Another problem with LTC Grossman's book is that despite saying he conducted over four hundred interviews, he quotes from these very little. In fact, he tends to quote from the same couple of works, Soldiers: A history of men in battle by John Keegan and Richard Holmes and Acts of War: Behavior of Men in Battle by Richard Holmes, over and over again. Because of the repetition and limited sources, many of his assertions seem poorly supported and to rely entirely on the works of other people. If he conducted all these interviews, why does he not reference them more? Also to consider, just because modern people have certain reactions in battle, it does not mean that this is how it has been through time immemorial. This reviewer highly recommends the works of Richard Holmes and John Keegan as an alternative to this poor work.

Finally, when he is given information that runs contrary to his views, he glosses over it or attempts to make it fit his conclusions. The most prominent example regards the guilt officers feel when men under their command die following that officer's orders. Essentially, he says none of the officers he interviewed expressed any guilt. Rather than concluding that maybe they really do not feel guilt, he concludes they must all be suppressing it. This is just absurd - a blatant attempt to make the facts fit a preconceived notion that the author has.

It is unfortunate that this book is accepted so uncritically. His work has affected the work of others in a detrimental manner. The subject is an interesting one, but unfortunately poorly researched. Grossman did do a service in pointing out the importance of the topic. His arguments and conclusion, however, are flawed and poorly thought out. Despite his claim to a history degree, he seems to have a poor grasp of the subject and its study. And in the end his book becomes a screed against violent video games, movies, and music, as if this is to blame for all our problems. My advice is to avoid this book if at all possible.

Those who have never had the privilege of serving in America's armed forces invariably believe the Hollywood depiction of the modern soldier as a soulless killing machine. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman shows in his groundbreaking study of killing in war, nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember the steely-eyed warriors who descended on Normandy, Anzio, Guadalcanal, and a host of other blood-soaked battlegrounds during World War II? Only one in five of these combat infantrymen were willing to fire their rifles.

Shocking? Surely, given the popular depiction of our fighting men. But military training has never been able to fully eradicate the innate resistance of killing one's fellow man amongst the common soldiery.

Yet we're getting better at it, with disturbing implications for our society. Grossman's data shows that the current crop of soldiers, raised on graphic violence in movies and video games, is much more willing to slay the enemy. This is undoubtedly a good thing from a purely military point of view. However, the cost is a consequent desensitization to the suffering of friend and foe alike, and psychological trauma which lasts long after the firing stops.

The introduction of women into combat situations has not slowed the inexorable trend toward a more savage soldier. During training to endure potential captivity as prisoners of war, male soldiers are taught to conquer their natural tendencies to protect females through an active desensitization process (a soldier is a soldier, whether male or female; we all signed up for this, etc.) What impact this has once these brave men return to society is uncertain, but you can bet that one cannot turn their humanity on and off like a light switch.

A profound and disturbing study which belongs in every library.

Grossman presents interesting and worth-while reading when dealing with the psychological workings of what it takes (soldiers) to kill. His hypothesis adding two additional phases to the typcal fight-or-flight response was new, at least to me, and makes sense. And his examination of ritual and rite involved with war, in particular the importance of ritual after war, and his coorelation between the lack of ritual and the high precentage of Vietnam vets who suffe(ed) from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was intriguing and even insightful.

Yet the book has significant short-comings. First is Grossman's lack of proper citation, footnotes, and supporting evidence. Time and again Grossman quotes experts or refers to people and studies but never gives the source. Grossman makes the error of assuming that his audience is as familar with this topic as he is. At one point, Grossman tells of a meeting with a mysterious Dr. Narut who reveals assassin training techniques taken right out of A Clockwork Orange, yet Grossman gives no other evidence to support this. These are elemental flaws in scholarship and rhetoric, and are the kinds of things that would not be tolerated in college research writing.

The Korean War (or Conflict if you want o be politically correct) is another problem. Grossman explains that during WW II only 15 to 20 percent of soldiers actually fired. By Korea this percentage was 50 to 55 percent, and by Vietnam it was 90 to 95 percent. My dispute is not with Grossman's numbers, but with the fact that aside from this statistic, the Korean War is barely mentioned, and its soldiers are never associated with the problem of PTSD.

The other, and most important, problem with the book is Grossman's reasoning behind the increase in violence in today's world, America in particular. Essentially, Grossman blames the media, television violence, Hollywood, and video games. His reasoning is akin to that against violent comic books in the 1950's when they were seen as being responsible for the rise in teenage crime. Grossman argues against the anti-hero of today's movies and against violent monster movies such as Friday the Thirteenth. He argues that violent video games condition teenagers just as military training conditions soldiers. Yet he gives no evidence to support his point of view. He cites not one study or even a magazine article to help him (oddly enough, if he had read King's The Danse Macabre, King's textbook on horror from 1950 to 1980, he would have found at least anticdotal evidence). And while he is trying to make this part of the book the crux of his entire argument, he fails miserably because he displays no knowledge or understanding of contemporary American culture or film history/theory and where such characters as the anti-hero derive from. In effect, Grossman comes off as a Nancy Reagan clone, with a "Just say no!" attitude that offers no real insight into why violence has increased, or how to deal with it. Where Grossman wants to hit the target the most, he misses far wide of the mark.

Dave Grossman has written perhaps one of the most insightful books on what motivates men in combat since S.LA. Marshall's "Men Against Fire". Grossman combines the thoroughness of an learned psychologist with the practical viewpoint of a lifetime dedicated to military service. He provides us with a unique and truly fascinating look into the dark and often terribly painful mental process that brings a man to pull the trigger and kill his fellow man. As an officer in the Army, I consider this book an essential read for anyone who may someday bear the burden of leading men in combat. We often get such a distorted view of remorseless killing from the popular media that most of us are shocked to discover that the act of killing a man at close range is something that very few soldiers are capable of. In a similar fashion to S.L.A. Marshall, Grossman demonstrates with overwhelming evidence how the vast majority of soldiers are tremendously reluctant to kill, frequently prefering to risk their own death instead. The book offers such a profound and important perspective on the nature of warfare at the human level that I suspect it will some day be part a curriculum for training officers and non-commissioned officers on combat leadership. Although the book's primary focus is on the nature of killing in warfare, his conclusions have relevance for anyone concerned with the problem of violence in society. One of Grossman's most useful conclusions is the suggestion that virtual reality video games allow their users to overcome the natural reluctance to kill by gradually desensitizing the mind to violence. This erosion then makes it easier for those who are pre-disposed to aggressive violence to act on their desires in a violent way. With the recent string of high school shootings, Grossman's hypothesis has immediate relevance to current social issues. In fact, he has been a frequent commentator on these tragedies with several national news networks. In summary, Grossman's book peers cautiously into the darker side of man's nature to understand what drives him to kill in combat. What he finds there is vastly different from what we are taught to expect- simply that the vast majority of people are unable to look a fellow man in the eye and kill him even if his own life may be at stake. The forces that allow him to overcome that reluctance in the heat of battle include peer pressure, leadership, training, and physical distance and are examined in great detail.

I just wanted to write a quick note and review about LTC Grossman's book and his character. I read a review which stated that, "His only vaguely denounced and hidden desire to change the US Constitution make me want to examine Mr. Grossman's education and military record in depth."

Let me say, I served briefly under LTC Grossman, then Major Grossman as a new Second Lieutenant in the US Army. He was, in my opinion, one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and studied officers I ever had the privilege of serving with. It was LTC Grossman, that first instilled in me how a professional soldier acts, thinks, commands, and motivates. LTC Grossman used to give a speech to ROTC Cadets during summer training at Ft. Lewis, WA that was so motivational, by the end the cadets would literally stand up and scream for more. The Army videotaped the presentation and often tried (unsuccessfully) to duplicate it. LTC Grossman used to lead philosophical discussions about the "warrior spirit" that would engage even the least interested. He first enlightened me to think about the mind of our enemy ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") and has helped me understand the minds and motivation of those that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 (I served under LTC Grossman in 1996). You will not defeat an enemy until you understand and address the root cause of their grievances.

For those interested in LTC Grossman's thoughts, I can recommend taking a look at several of Robert Heinlein's books, which LTC Grossman recommended to me. Specifically, "Starship Troopers", the book bastardised by Hollywood in the movie under the same name.

Many of LTC Grossman's teachings remain with me today, and he is one person that will impart knowledge that stays with you for a lifetime. While studying for my MBA, I wrote my business plans in accordance with the 5 paragraph OPORD, or Operations Order, and as a result I had more than one professor ask me to review independent grant, business, and research proposals.

I read LTC Grossman's book as a Cadet, and while I have to admit, much of it made me feel intellectually humble, his overarching hypothesis has passed the litmus test of time. After the Columbine shootings in Colorado, I saw LTC Grossman on a morning talkshow addressing many of the concerns premised in his book "On Killing" which was several years old by then. The events of 9/11 make me believe that we can all learn a little from LTC Grossman that will help this nation understand who, what, why, and how this nation will fight and win the war against terror.

Amidst the smoke and karaoke crooning of New Year's Eve, a friend and I got to talking about trauma. I'm a US Navy veteran; I never killed, but I served in hazard zones and as a police officer. She recommended a book--*On Killing*.

Written by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman, US Army retired, the book describes itself as the founding study on killing. To my surprise, I found it to be a pseudo-scientific screed against media.

--On Insults--

Right off the bat, the paperback takes a swing at skeptics. It compares us morally and scientifically to tobacco lobbyists. It also plays the race card, accusing people who oppose censorship of being racist. The book dismisses personal freedom itself, declaring:

"I think most individuals would agree that the `just turn it off' solution probably rates right up there with `let them eat cake' and `I was just following orders' as all-time offensive statements."

I'm offended by populist statements accusing critics of racist tyranny! Yet I read the whole book.

--On Media--

Far from a study of killing, the central thesis states: "Finally, *and perhaps most important*, I believe that this study will provide insight into the way that rifts in our society combine with violence in media and in interactive video games to indiscriminately condition our nation's children to kill." (emphasis Grossman's).

To this conclusion, the book follows a chain of hypotheses:

1) People are pacifists.
2) Atrocities and social conditions push people to kill.
3) The military exploits conditioning to push kill rates higher.
4) Media adopts military conditioning to program civilian children to kill.
5) First Amendment and market controls are required.

--On Veneer--

Unbefitting these controversial claims, the content is superficial.

*On Killing* examines American infantry during modern wars. Yet it generalizes that all humans throughout history are innately opposed to homicide. The text doesn't try to consider nurture instead of nature, failing to explore killing across different cultures, demographics, or periods. Nor does Grossman offer a mechanism for aversion, preferring to prattle poetically about people.

Repeatedly, the author claims original research. In practice, his study is a pile of cherry-picked quotes strung together with personal opinions, urban legends, and movie references. Credible citation is also absent; I would expect APA format at least. The book finally admits to reliance on pop literature for most of its testimonials--not exactly sound science.

Indeed, whole chapters babble with romantic commentary. Vietnam studies stray into denial that we lost the war, egotistical assertions of American prowess, and diatribes on the treatment of veterans. I often felt like I was reading a talk-show transcript.

--On Histrionics--

Frequent hysterics reinforce this tabloid quality. It announces, "After nuclear holocaust, the next major threat to our existence is the violent decay of our civilization due to violence-enabling in the electronic media." Pardon me while my eyes roll right out of their sockets!

The tone also raised my eyebrows. It sticks to the page with sexual and slaughterhouse metaphors. Yet obscenities are scoured, notably "f---" and "s---". I suspect any book that compares itself to a sex manual, but strikes out the language. I also mistrust loaded phrasing: specifically the repetitious use of "the egalitarian United States", "violence-enabling media", "brainwashing", and "conspiracies".

The author uses those last two terms a lot, as *On Killing* slips into conspiracy theories. From the start, it declares media violence to be a genocidal plot against black people. The Vietnam chapters suggest an illuminati-like anti-war movement. The final sections build off fantastic *Clockwork Orange* CIA scenarios.

These creepy assertions bubble out of otherwise sedate passages, until less-discerning readers float atop without any idea that their feet have left the ground.

--On Manipulation--

*On Killing* really sails into space when it applies fallacy to American society. The central thesis states that humans are inherently adverse to killing, but modern electronic media reproduces combat conditioning without safeguards. Now I don't doubt media influences human behavior. I do doubt *On Killing* for drawing far-fetched conclusions from dubious methodology:

>Reliance on Arguments from Authority,
>Argument from Repetition,
>Band Wagon Appeals,
>and Inappropriate Analogies.

The book also suffers pervasive cognitive bias:

>Fallacy of correlation versus causation.
>Omitting reasonable alternatives.
>Reinforcing bias through false dilemma.

Example: The book claims graphic media is the only increasing factor in violent crime. This ignores the history of economic conditions, hard drugs, and firearms, or criminal immigration. The book further fails to account for pitfalls of statistical reporting. It reinforces bias by denying the potency of firearms and drugs. Grossman's false dilemma claims that science cannot safely prove a link between media and violence, so we should assume it on his authority.

--On Conclusion--

After 300-pages of war stories, *On Killing* asserts that Dirty Harry turned our children into murderers. It coyly advocates government censorship and public censure to control our expression.

This has nothing to do with a study of killing. This *is* another fallacy, related to the "irrelevant conclusion": the author presents an attractive set of arguments--those sympathetic soldiers-- then switches to a disconnected thesis. Overall, the book calls itself into question with what amounts to a 30-page non-sequitur.

To paraphrase the text itself, *On Killing* stakes out the same moral and scientific ground as the tobacco industry. It insults readers and their beliefs. Arguments are trite and sag with fallacy. And the histrionics--the melodramatic declarations, the conspiracy theories, and the twisted morality--makes this sham of psychology as crazy as the patient.

Lt. Col. David Grossman's ON KILLING contains much information of great value. The good parts are superb. Unfortunately, there's a fair amount of dubious material too.

Grossman notes that many studies have shown that most soldiers in combat will not spontaneously fire a rifle at an enemy, and suggests that there is an instinctive barrier against killing our own species in most people. So far, so good, and the evidence he sites convinced me. But then he tries to apply this to all of military history, with dubious results. For instance, it never occurs to him that among the reasons so many people using smoothbore muskets missed are 1)The muskets had no sights; 2)The soldiers using them had no markmanship training -- in fact, they frequently went into their first battle without ever having fired their weapon at all; 3)It's always easier to shoot on the firing range than on the battle field (naval gunnery in combat deteriorated radically compared to pre-war practice). Similarly, 1% of the fighter pilots got 40% of the kills -- but considering that bomber gunners weren't taught how to fire properly at attacking fighters till almost the end of the war (see Geoffrey Perret's WINGED VICTORY), fighter training may have been similarly bad. And one reason so many of the abandoned muskets at Gettsyburg had multiple loads may well be that the soldiers who double loaded them were paniced, and the panic also led them to get killed, or drop their rifle and RUN.

When he comes to the plague of violence in modern urban USAmerica, Grossman is alarmed by violent video games and movies, and their possible effects on our children. An important subject, and he may be right. But I looked the movies he sees as dangerous (DIRTY HARRY, FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH, etc.), and they didn't appear till after the rate of violent crime had shot up. Same with the video games. Nor is there much consideration of cross-cultural crime rates, even though "violent American movies" (and even more violent Japanese movies) are seen worldwide. Why the wide national differences in crime rates?

Further, while it's easy to see how a military training program that teaches automatic reactive firing in combat is rather like a modern video game, the high school massacres we've seen recently didn't occur as a result of someone firing at an armed teenager, who then went ape. They occured because kids brought guns to school with the deliberate, pre-meditated intention of murdering the unarmed. Mass murder and serial killing have existed throughout human history.

Still, even with these reservations, I highly recommend this book. Grossman has taken the first good look at a subject that has been almost totally ignored. I hope others follow his lead.

I am a reporter. Most people would expect me to deny Lt. Col. Grossman's findings, pertaining to violence in the media, as sensationalist and misleading since I should know where my bread is buttered.

I admit, I was skeptical, but during research for an article on violence in the schools, I came across the colonel's book, "On Killing". After reading it, I became a convert.

The comparison of the military's usage of operant and classical conditioning techniques with the psychological effects experienced by juveniles when they observe violence - or participate in it, in the case of interactive shoot-'em-up video games - was quite enlightening. Col. Grossman brought a fresh perspective to the debate and convinced me to rethink my original opinion.

Of course, his theory wouldn't hold unless he could prove that humans, by nature, are unable to kill other human beings unless trained and psychologically conditioned to do so. I believe he did prove this point.

Simplistic solutions such as instituting media criticism courses, turning off the TV or banning guns won't stop the killing because they don't get at the core psychological problems and they don't address the enabling factors that are co-conspirators in juvenile violence.

Listen to this man.