Posted on 12/01/2008 6:12:55 AM PST by Abathar
How do soldiers come to terms with having taken a life in combat? Research has suggested that when people consider themselves to be “good” but are forced to do something “bad” to others, they adopt negative opinions about their victims to rationalize their actions. But according to a new study, this tendency may not apply to soldiers or at least not to those who have served in the Iraq War. American soldiers who have killed in Iraq do not think more poorly of Iraqis than Iraq War soldiers who have not killed—they do, however, think worse of Americans who speak out against the war.
Wayne Klug, a psychologist at Berkshire Community College, asked 68 Iraq War veterans about their experiences, their thoughts on the war and their opinions about Iraqis and Americans. Compared with soldiers who never saw combat and those who witnessed a death but were not involved, veterans who “were directly involved in an Iraqi fatality” were much more likely to consider the war to be beneficial to both countries. The finding is consistent with prior evidence that people tend to value outcomes that require great effort or distress. But although previous research predicts that these soldiers might disparage their victims, investigators were surprised to find that these veterans instead resented Americans whose opinions about the war suggest that their killings may have been unjustified.
This change could be a result of the unique circumstances surrounding the Iraq War. “A clue lies in the political and public nature of a controversial war fought by a volunteer army,” says Klug, who presented his findings in August at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association in Boston. For example, in the Vietnam War soldiers were drafted, and people who avoided serving were viewed with suspicion, he explains. But today the situation is reversed.
“The veterans are aware of their status as the ‘stepchildren’ of polite American society, a sense that’s enhanced by their abysmal treatment upon returning,” he posits. Because America’s decision to go to war was the sole reason these soldiers killed, they “now depend on that policy to justify their actions,” Klug believes. Those who disagree with the policy, then, become automatic enemies.
My fear is that so many soldiers will leave now that Baraq will be CIC that we will have to again revert to the draft. A lot of young recruits will never want to serve under his administration, and if something big happens I don't think that people will want to give their life for our nation like they would under a CIC who loves them back.
> My fear is that so many soldiers will leave now that Baraq will be CIC that we will have to again revert to the draft.
I think His Excellency anticipates that mass departure, which is one of the reasons that will justify him surrendering in Iraq.
It also justifies and enables his massive Civilian Security Force. That’s where the “draft” part of your observation comes in.
Wow, this guy is a real professor at a Community College!
Sounds like another lefty wacko that has not taken time to examine the right as to why they are Patriotic for fear that they will discover their unpatriotic makeup.
I also wonder what other factors he considered. For example, those who took a life were more likely deployed in provinces that were in turmoil—and thus benefitted more from the US presence.
What a bunch of crap.
How about THIS study that won’t ever be done:
“Women who have killed their unborn babies more likely to defend abortion.”
Why is it that democrats are too dumb to realize that conscripts make terrible soldiers? If Barry thinks he can draft me into getting my ass shot at in Darfur or whatever african pisshole he thinks he can send me into he can think again.
Sure if I’m drafted I’ll do my duty ... but I don’t consider serving America and serving Bambi to be the same thing.
more communistic dribble
Anything to break down the U.S.A.
A study involving 68 interviews? To draw such grand conclusions is not only anecdotal and unworthy of publication beyond Junior High School. The fact that a magazine with a once great reputation would permit this drivel to be included speaks volumes about the decline of education in this country.
yes, it is communist drivel at that...:-)
That title is insulting.
“What a bunch of Crap”
Hear, hear!
“My fear is that so many soldiers will leave now that Baraq will be CIC that we will have to again revert to the draft. A lot of young recruits will never want to serve under his administration, and if something big happens I don’t think that people will want to give their life for our nation like they would under a CIC who loves them back.”
We swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey the orders of those lawfully appointed over us. We don’t serve the person sitting in the CinC’s chair, we serve the Constitution. Frankly, if somebody’s going to make his or her decision to sign up based on who’s in the chair, I don’t want him or her in the military. Just my 2 cents.
Colonel, USAFR
Outstanding, exactly right.
I have lamented more than once on the policy of not being allowed to change the titles on *&^% like this.
Marine re-con, special forces, etc.
Those called up from the national guard and reserves may very well have never figured they might have to serve in combat.
Lefty pukes shouldn’t attempt to write about things they don't understand.
Are you saying that just because he doesn't work at aome cesspool like Harvard that he is lacking in credibility?
Are you saying that just because he doesn't work at aome cesspool like Harvard that he is lacking in credibility?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.