Comments on: Veterans Day – Over There

By: Lars Walker

Lars Walker — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:22:05 +0000

OK, I think I found a reference, and my memory was incorrect. What Grossman is saying is that in old warfare there was time for rest. If battles lasted several days, they at least stopped at night. The men had time to debrief, and the memories they synthesized in those debriefings were often very different from the actual events.

In modern warfare, a battle can go on for days. “On any given day in World War II, thousands of psychiatric casualties were in camps close to the front lines… Worst of all were those rare situations in which soldiers were trapped in continuous combat for 60 to 90 days…. Fighting all day and all night for months on end is a twentieth century phenomenon…. On the beaches of Normandy in World War II, for example, there were no rear lines, and for two months there was no way to escape the horror of continuous fighting…. It was learned then that after 60 days and nights of constant combat, 98 percent of soldiers became psychiatric casualties.

“What about the other two percent? They were aggressive sociopaths.”

By: Lars Walker

Lars Walker — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:08:36 +0000

I forget the details of the one reference I’ve seen so far. I’ve got a lot of reading yet to do. But if I recall correctly (I’m not at all sure I do), he says that the idea of airlifting the men in and then airlifting them out again after a fire fight interferes with the traditional, and more natural, order of things. Don’t have the book I’m thinking of with me at the moment.

By: Kit

Kit — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:33:51 +0000

How have “recent military doctrines have prevented soldiers from getting the opportunity to do that”?

What military doctrines?

Just curious.

By: Rufus

Rufus — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:12:32 +0000

My old man hangs out at the local VA and that’s what goes on there; therapy. It’s probably impossible for folks who haven’t been in war to understand war. So, as Floyd wrote, the guys who have been there get together under the guise of throwing back some cheap beers. They talk about the wars they were in, and what they did, and they talk about their kids and grandkids and how much the Bears suck and the fish they caught last weekend, or their most recent score on the golf course. A guess a psychologist might call it therapy, but I think these guys just call it men doing what men do.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:45:27 +0000

Yeah Lars… I’ve met Grossman a couple of times. Veterans often get more out of a gaggle of vets a few beers and some pizza and shooting the shit for a few hours than they do from psychology.

Grossman’s “On Killing” should be required reading.

By: Lars Walker

Lars Walker — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:27:40 +0000

I’m reading some material sent to me by Lt. Col. David Grossman, an expert on the physiological and psychological effects of combat. One thing he mentions is the importance of soldiers being able to get together and *talk* about the battle after it’s over. In the process of talking, their memory of the experience is re-shaped, and they find a form of narrative that helps them to handle the awful facts. He says recent military doctrines have prevented soldiers from getting the opportunity to do that, resulting in greater psychological damage.

I suspect that presenting a heroic picture to the civilian population, so that the soldiers feel admired and honored when they come home, also has a practical benefit in helping our defenders handle their experiences.