More on the stress of combat

[Bill Glasheen]

Van, Rory, Darren and I have all alluded to the psychological aspects of self-defense and of combat.

To most armchair warriors unschooled in this venue, all this stuff we do is karate play. The real deal is a whole other ball of wax. Partly as a product of natural selection and survival of the species, we humans are normally hard-wired not to kill or harm our own kind. Kill Bambi for dinner? No problem. Kill thy neighbor? At the deepest centers of our psyche, this is something that instinctively we do not do. A small (about 15 percent) of our population can overcome this barrier and kill for a living. Some such as members of special forces or unique LEOs such as Rory are our "sheepdogs" who thankfully are there to watch over the flock. Some are the wolves who make up our worst nightmare. And the rest of us? Operant conditioning can teach us to overcome the barrier to kill one's own kind - for a bit. After a point, the brain rebels.

Is this important for a martial artist to know? It's probably even more important than having a good punch or kick. A proper combat mindset is the foundation of all we do that is physical. It is the essence of what we work on when we investigate the three conflicts. Body is nothing - even when facing one's own demise - without mind and spirit where it needs to be.

Studying and understanding pathology associated with combat gives us a glimpse into this world. Understand that each of us is wired a bit differently, so manifests stress overload in our own way. I'm not suggesting we'd all "go postal" under or after the stress of combat. But the extreme nature of this act - an act committed apparently against the very mental health professionals hired to help our men in combat - speaks to the state of consciousness that none of us would know unless we've been there.

- Bill

Slayings spotlight stress on combat

By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — The killing of five U.S. servicemembers Monday allegedly by a fellow soldier at a military counseling center is prompting the Pentagon to look more closely at the role of combat stress.

The military is investigating the shootings, which would be the most U.S. troops killed by a fellow servicemember in a single attack during the Iraq war.

"It does speak to me about the need for us to redouble our efforts in terms of dealing with the stress," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Washington.

In a statement, the military said a "U.S. soldier suspected of being involved with the shootings" had been taken into custody after the 2 p.m. incident at Camp Liberty, a base near the Baghdad airport. The military did not release details or names of the suspect and victims.

A senior military official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident was under investigation, said the shooter was a patient at the clinic, according to the Associated Press. The official did not know what relationship the shooter had to those killed. It was unclear whether the victims worked at the clinic or were there for counseling.

"If the preliminary reports are confirmed, such a tragic loss of life at the hands of our own forces is a cause for great and urgent concern," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters.

President Obama, who visited an adjacent base last month, said he met with Gates to discuss "this horrible tragedy. I will press to ensure that we fully understand what led to this tragedy, and that we are doing everything we can to ensure that our men and women in uniform are protected."

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an Army spokesman, said the shootings occurred at a counseling center on Camp Liberty. The base includes the 98th Combat Stress Control detachment with nearly 50 psychiatrists, social workers and others. Commanders can send soldiers there for counseling and group therapy, Maj. Kevin Gormley said in a recent interview.

At least 18% of the troops serving in Iraq likely suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the National Center for PTSD.

Other U.S. troops have turned their weapons on fellow soldiers during the Iraq war about a half-dozen times, according to Pentagon data.

- USA Today

[Valkenar]

This sort of thing is often brought up here, but one thing I've been wondering lately is what sorts of scenarios it actually applies to. Certainly if you have a gun or a knife and are contemplating using it, then the question of killing is front and center. But if you're talking about defending yourself unarmed against an unarmed attacker, killing is much less of an issue. While it may be that only 15% of people are capable of intentionally killing another person, isn't the proportion that are capable of "merely" beating someone up (even though you could accidentally kill them) quite a bit higher?

Certainly there are psychological impediments to defending oneself even against an unarmed attack (shock, denial, etc) but could it be that we're somewhat barking up the wrong tree when we're comparing, for example, a soldier's psychological ability to fire his weapon, and our psychological ability to beat someone up? How do we know that the factors relevant to police officers and military personnel are really the same factors relevant to unarmed self-defense in everyday life?

I'm not saying this stuff isn't valuable or relevant, and again I recognize the importance of it for those most concerned about putting a weapon to use, but I'm just curious whether and how we know the same concepts apply equally to fisticuffs.

[Bill Glasheen]

That's a fair line of questioning, Justin. And I think there is something to your premise that there may be a relationship between the inhibition to act vs. the degree of morbidity/mortality associated with our actions.

It's been years since I've read much of this stuff. But Grossman talks a lot about the general human aversion to confrontation at any level. Some among us confront quite readily. I've noted a few near-sociopaths on these forums who seem to revel in the ability to display their confrontational prowess. (What-ever...) But while we tend to be a select (non-random) group, most of us don't care to engage in these confrontations.

The one factor that Grossman points out is so important is distance. It's easy for a soldier to play Nintendo warfare, where one doesn't have to see directly the consequences of launching that missile. It's easy to hurl insults from behind a keyboard. This is in contrast to the person who must use a blade while looking at the face of his/her opponent or attacker. On that note, Grossman talks a lot about how the act of turning your back (not seeing the face combined with the chase instinct) can dramatically alter the course of events in mortal combat. A good deal of the killing in fact historically happens during a retreat.

In short, it's not a simple, binary issue. Many factors come in to play - including (proper) training. And to that point... this article highlights that even properly trained soldiers can suffer from overcoming their aversion to confrontation and killing. At some point, many hit the PTSD wall.

All this applies in daily life as well. We abhor direct confrontation. We tend to do a lot of talking behind the back, etc. Both job losers AND managers suffer during extreme company layoffs. Etc. In short, confrontation sux for most of us.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm just curious whether and how we know the same concepts apply equally to fisticuffs.

As I stated above... One thing to consider here, Justin, is distance. Because fisticuffs involves an intimate or near-intimate distance, the barrier to harm is larger than most wannabe warriors are willing to admit to themselves. Hence the tendency for most to posture as opposed to actually hitting someone.

I'm sure you've seen this before, Justin. "I coulda kicked his ass..." Coulda, woulda, shoulda. None of that counts when it comes actually to hitting. It's what many people do in lieu of actually hitting. And thankfully so. That's part of the programming that helps maintain the species.

And for many who cross that threshold, the battle has just begun.

- Bill

[RA Miller]

"merely" beating someone up (even though you could accidentally kill them) quite a bit higher?

Bill already got the distance stuff. This whole issue is really layered. But one factor is that some of the most psychologically damaged officers I know are ones who were involved in unintentional death, eg wrestling with a threat in excited delirium until the threat's heart gives out. The few that I have known well enough to ask felt a lot of hurt and showed a lot of damage over the fact that they tried so hard and were so careful to keep the force at a low level and the threat died anyway.

Sorry for the thread drift.

Rory

[Bill Glasheen]

Sorry for the thread drift.

Rory

Quite the contrary, Rory. I think you're spot on the topic.

It'll take a while to understand what happened with this soldier who allegedly committed military fratricide. But we can only imagine the demons involved. Would this person as easily have committed the same act as a civilian? We don't have all the information - particularly the initial psych conditions of the attacker. But it's worth a close look.

This stuff is of course right up your alley, Rory. I'm just a pretend psychologist; you've had the book and field training. It's an interesting and - as you stated - multi-layered subject.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

one factor is that some of the most psychologically damaged officers I know are ones who were involved in unintentional death, eg wrestling with a threat in excited delirium until the threat's heart gives out.

One of the most dramatic examples of this happened at one of our camps during a padded escrima match.

"david" is a seasoned street fighter and Hancock-Street-era Uechika who is well known to the veterans of our style. He's a small Asian who as a youth had a chip on his shoulder and wasn't afraid to beat the @#$ out of anyone who wanted to utter a racist remark. He matured into a wonderful, thoughtful human being, husband, and surrogate father to many disadvantaged youth.

In summer camp, Raffi was conducting these point escrima stick matches. It was david against some tall teenager. Well david goes in with a lunge, and the end of the padded stick broke off. The stick penetrated the face mask and went in half a foot. Something flew out when the stick was withdrawn. From david's vantage point, it looked like he took this person's eye out.

I've only heard that kind of screaming human anguish once before in my life. Naturally as someone who has done surgery (in the dog lab) for years, I had no problem running up to the kid to check out his wound. As luck would have it, the stick went inside the mask, but beside his head. He was fine.

But even as I brought the kid to david and let him touch and see his perfectly fine face, david was unconsoled. It took a long time for him psychologically to settle down. As much of a fierce warrior as I knew david was, this wasn't what he had intended. And his mind wasn't ready to forgive him, in spite of evidence that there was no harm.

This odd event taught me a lot about a known warrior's multi-dimensional personality.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

The few that I have known well enough to ask felt a lot of hurt and showed a lot of damage over the fact that they tried so hard and were so careful to keep the force at a low level and the threat died anyway.

Oh absolutely. The impact of killing someone is going to have a profound effect no matter how it happens. But as you describe, the people weren't expecting the other person to die. That might very well make it easier to fight them to begin with, and harder to overcome when it's over.

[Glenn]

I heard some discussion of this on the radio this morning. Apparently the soldier in question had been showing some signs of instability to the extent that his commanding officer had taken his gun away and recommended him for psychological evaluation.

Related to the discussion on this thread, one aspect that was mentioned as a possible contributing factor is that, with the current stretched state of the armed forces, soldiers are not only having their deployments extended but also getting less downtime between deployments. According to the report, he was currently in his third deployment to Iraq. The concern is that the soldiers are not getting the downtime needed between deployments to help reduce the stress and other psychological issues that Bill and others are talking about.

[Jason Rees]

Soldiers and Airmen in certain career fields are definitely NOT getting enough time between deployments. I talked to some in Kuwait that had been in Iraq a year, were back three months, and then in Kuwait for a year. These same people will likely be back home for three months, then back on their way to Afghanistan.

Something's gotta break, sooner or later.

[Bill Glasheen]

Jason

I agree that the situation is not ideal.

God knows that a lot of civilians are suffering now as well. These are tough times. And yes in a not-so-strange way, it's all connected.

Live and learn.

Our servicemen and women deserve better, as do hard working people in the rest of life. We all need to try harder - for each other.

And you know me, Jason. I'm not suggesting the government stick its hands in our pockets, or otherwise step outside its boundaries. Maybe with a little less money spent on social engineering, we'd be able to spend a little more money reimbursing our servicepeople. More pay? More service applicants, and more time off for those already extending their time. Works for me!

I suppose we all could get into discussions about whether we should or shouldn't be here or there. But once you start something, you need to finish it right. Afghanistan is a prime example of what happens when you walk away and leave a power vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum; just ask OBL and his merry Taliban warriors.

- Bill

[Jason Rees]

Funny you should mention Afghanistan. I'll be visiting there in the future (won't say when). Pardon my absence the past month: it's been busy round these parts.