Coalition troops
I haven't said anything about the reports of coalition troops mistreating Iraqis POWs as I figured it was probably an isolated incident and was being dealt with swiftly and correctly. However today's Independent raises the stakes somewhat:"The full extent of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners began to emerge last night when the United States announced it had launched investigations into the deaths of 23 detainees and the murder of two others"
Brownie over at Harry's Place notes that:
"This is not an attempt to excuse genuine war crimes, but to anyone with the most tangential acquaintance with the military, the alleged activities of some soldiers are all too familiar and wholly unsurprising. It is obviously news to some horrified commentators that those who are asked to kill, risk being killed and watch their buddies get killed, are somewhat less susceptible to the moral ambiguities that currently plague many a Fleet Street column, not to mention some contributions on this and other blogs."
This does come after a comparison with the behaviour of WWII soldiers as they entered Dachau concentration camp, which seems ridiculous and unpleasant. The ill-treatment in Iraq isn't -- as far as we are aware -- committed as soliders liberated Saddam's death camps, but some time after, and of prisoners who possibly didn't even have anything to do with the 'resistance'.
Nevertheless despite the flawed comparision, his general point has more to be said for it. Indeed it is worse than he makes out - basically soldiers are trained to not have moral ambiguities.
"On Killing", by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, explains all.
Simplifying massively, in every war before the Korean War, it's estimated (from anecdotal evidence from soldiers and officers, from examining guns that should have been fired and weren't, etc.), that less than 20% of American infantry fired their weapons when they could see the enemy. It's unclear how many of those were actually aiming at the enemy, either. At Gettysburg, some men repeatedly loaded their gun without firing it.
Yet in the Korean War, after the introduction of new training techniques, it's estimated it was about 50% of infantry soldiers fired their weapons when they saw the enemy. By the Vietnam War, it was 90%.
Essentially there's a strong, inbuilt barrier against killing other human beings. Originally, basic training for conscript armies consisted of how to shoot the gun, lots of marching, and obey this guy. The main point of all the drills is to get you to obey the officer. Hard physical exercise, lack of sleep, reduces your inhibitions, lots of drilling in formation, all encourages you to obey orders and do what everyone else does. This was somewhat effective at getting people to break their inbuilt resistance to killing people, but not very. Modern basic training involves getting someone in a much more realistic setting, e.g. sitting in a foxhole using live ammo to , and offering rewards, such as time off if you shoot enough of them, The point being that it's much, much closer to real combat.
Now this is good for fighting wars -- having 70% more of your soldiers doing what they are paid to do obviously makes you a better fighting force. However it also means that you have 70% more of your soldiers prepared to do something normally they would not do, and as in this case it's killing someone, this does not make soldiers very good peace-keepers. It also makes such reports as we have heard recently almost inevitable.
The problem in Iraq of course is that this was sold by many as a different kind of war, one in which we would liberate and democratise a nation. A noble aim, but perhaps one that is literally impossible with modern armed forces. This does not mean all hope is lost, but it does mean that perhaps in future if you want to conduct this type of war it would be best to have 100,000 policeman trained and ready.
posted by Matthew @ 5/05/2004 08:49:00 AM
Comments: 0
