KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 1

PSY 364 Project:

Killing for Eros: The Psychological Consequences of Training Men to Kill for War

Rebecca Sproul

University of Maine at Augusta

Fall 2016
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 2

Killing for Eros:

The Psychological Consequences of Training Men to Kill for War

Thanatos, the Greek god of death, allows his power to now lay in the hands of those trained

to kill for their country. In the blink of an eye, a man has the power to take another human life.

Further, he is able to take that life and know he will be forgiven by his country, for he did so to

protect it. Rationalization, however, does not entirely clear the conscience of a man with blood on

his hands. He knows he was driven by Eros, his basic instinct to do what it takes to survive, and,

yet, he must accept the psychological consequences of being trained by our military to kill.

“Generation after generation, we have marched young men off to be killed in wars. In U.S. society,

dying or being maimed in war is considered an act of heroism rather than as the victimization of a

young man” (Kilmartin & Smiler, 2015, p. 166) despite that being exactly what it is. By training our

country’s young men to kill, we put them at risk for detrimental psychological harm, and due to both

our severe lack of understanding and our country’s enforced gender roles and expectations, we are

unable to provide adequate resources for their recovery.

Being trained to kill is a rather new concept, despite our participation in many wars since the

dawn of time. The revolution of military instruction began after the end of World War II, when it

was discovered that nearly eight-five percent of soldiers never fired at the enemy due to their

reluctance to kill (Grossman, 2009, p. 25). Of course, “a firing rate of 15 to 20 percent among

soldiers is like having a literacy rate of 15 to 20 percent among proofreaders” (Grossman, 2009, p.

253). The goal of war is to kill more enemies than your enemy kills of you. Therefore, it soon

became the primary goal of military leaders to ensure men overcame this reluctance. In Korea, rates

of infantrymen firing their weapons rose to fifty-five percent, and by Vietnam, up to ninety-five
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 3

percent (Grossman, 2009, 253). These rates were risen due to new training methods, which, while

effective, are also dehumanizing a gender which is already being desensitized to their own emotions

by their culture.

To better understand this concept, consider “the primary factors that affect an individual’s

ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the

distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim” (Kudo, 2015). Thus, in military

training, soldiers are desensitized, conditioned, and taught denial defense mechanisms (Grossman,

2009, p. 253). Essentially, desensitization involves thinking of the enemy as something unhuman.

You do not kill someone you identify with, or picture going home to a loving wife and family. There

needs to be something vastly different about the enemy which sets you apart, for nothing can bring

you together, else you might not pull the trigger. In our current war, this concept is evident in the

rise of Islamophobia. When trying to dehumanize those who military servicemen were sent over to

kill in the Middle East, the most evident difference from “traditional” Americans is their religion. In

order to kill these men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, military men are taught to view all Arabs

as terrorists. There is no doubt that these unfounded stereotypes seep into everyday American

culture, as well. Next, conditioning involves training in life-like situations rather than shooting in

the open in front of a target (Grossman, 2009, p. 255). By practicing with full gear and in situations

men may actually encounter overseas, they are better able to make snap decisions once they get

there. Lastly, servicemen are taught to use denial defense mechanisms. “Basically the soldier has

rehearsed the process so many times that when he does kill in combat he is able to, at one level, deny

to himself that he is actually killing another human being” (Grossman, 2009, p. 257). One of the

dangers, of which there are many, is the population we are training to use these methods, and the

impact of these methods on future mental health. Though this will be discussed further later, men in

our country are consistently held to high standards of what it means to be masculine. One of these
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 4

standards is proving to be strong emotionally and physically. Boys are taught from a young age not

to show emotion, but this does not mean they do not feel emotion. Thus, by essentially denying

something so personal and traumatic, we are setting men up for the inability to cope with these

emotions when they inevitably come to the surface.

Being trained to kill, of course, differs greatly from actually taking a life. In an article written

by Timothy Kudo, a Marine captain who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, explains the internal

struggle of a real life account. In the real world, you cannot always make the right call, and even

when you do, it can be hard to see the enemy as anything but human, just like you, regardless of the

amount of training you receive. Kudo writes, “If someone is shooting at me, I have a right to fire

back. But this is a legal justification, not a moral one” (Kudo, 2015). For, “the more [one thinks]

about the enemy, the harder it was to view them as evil or subhuman. But killing requires a

motivation, so the concept of self-defense becomes the defining principle of target attractiveness”

(Kudo, 2015). Many men, in fact, have felt the internal struggle of seeing themselves in their target,

but being required to kill him anyway. “The enemy fighters [are] often young men raised alongside

poppy fields in small farms set up like latticework along the river. They must have [be] too young

and too isolated to understand anything outside of their section of the valley, never mind something

global like the 9/11 attacks” (Kudo, 2015). What is fascinating about Kudo’s statement is that he

seems to forget that he, too, is a young man simply doing his job and his duty as a soldier for the

United States military. There are innocent men on either side of every war, doing what they know,

protecting who they love, and trying to go home at the end of the day. Again, Kudo pens,

I never killed [the Taliban commander in my area]. Instead, each day we would kill

his soldiers or his soldiers would kill our marines. The longer I lived among the

Afghans, the more I realized that neither the Taliban nor we were fighting for the

reasons I expected. Despite the rhetoric I internalized from the newspapers back
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 5

home about why were in Afghanistan, I ended up fighting for different reasons once

I got on the ground—a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit, and the urge to survive.

(Kudo, 2015)

By learning to kill, soldiers go through stages much like those coping with death and dying.

“The basic response stages to killing in combat are concern about killing, the actual kill, exhilaration,

remorse, and rationalization and acceptance” (Grossman, 2009). First, the concern about killing is

the moment before taking the shot in which a man realizes he has to make a decision, and that the

decision can either spare or take a life. In just a moment, the soldier questions what he will feel and

if it will be worth it. Second, he makes, or does not make, the actual kill. It is important to note here

that men can go through these stages in any order. For example, if he does not make the kill, the

problem stops here. But “usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for

the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed

reflexively, without conscious thought” (Grossman, 2009). Third, he experiences a feeling of

exhilaration. During this time, he feels the “rush” many hunters feel. Holding a gun, holding that

much command in your hands, makes one feel powerful, strong, and masculine. These, of course,

are qualities men in the United States are actively seeking on a daily basis because they are socialized

to value them. So when they finally achieve them, they feel a rush. However, it is quickly followed

by remorse. This can be especially true in face-to-face combat, because the effect of death can be

so clearly seen. Soldiers realize they killed someone like them, even when the trained part of them

is telling them how different the enemy is. It is still a man, sometimes a woman or a child, who

looks like you, and dies the way you’ve seen your loved ones pass. But, finally, rationalization and

acceptance take place. The soldier remembers he saved the lives of others around him by making

this kill. Essentially, he sees the value in killing one man for the greater good. Unfortunately, for

many soldiers, it is not just one required kill. Some soldiers do even rationalize by understanding
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 6

how many lives were lost on their own side. For example, Kudo writes, “Seeing the enemy so

quickly after our Marine was killed was the perfect opportunity for revenge” (Kudo, 2015). In order

to survive as an active duty serviceman, it is vital to believe in the it’s-either-us-or-them mentality.

This is all without mention of the increased likelihood of men in the military suffering from

Post-Traumatic or Post-Combat Stress Disorder. Nearly twenty percent of military veterans who

served in Iraq have been diagnosed with PTSD (Veteran’s Affairs, 2016). For men serving in combat

positions, their likelihood increases with each encounter. People who live with PTSD constantly

live in fear or anxiety about their trauma, and often report feeling like they are still at war. Part of

the reason many develop PTSD is guilt and self-doubt. Kudo writes, “I could look you in the eye

and tell you I’m sure that the two men we killed right after our Marine died were planting a bomb .

. . at the same time, doubt creeps in. The emotions surrounding loss and revenge can distort reality”

(Kudo, 2015). It is through this distortion that men can get lost.

The saddest part, is that we are essentially victimizing men for being willing to serve, to

risk their lives for, our country. It is true that women also serve in the military, however, it is still

a highly male-dominated field with around eighty-five percent of forces being men (Kilmartin &

Smiler, 2015, p. 166). Therefore, it should be important to understand the male psyche. For

example, we live in a culture dictated by the idea of a gender binary. There are men, who should

be masculine, and women, who should be feminine. Though this may be disputed, a great deal of

our cultural values support this ideal. Of course, masculine behaviors are often characterized by

being the opposite of feminine ones. For example, women are expected to show emotion, and

thus, men are expected to show emotional restraint. Society disapproves of men who ask for help,

and that fact, in itself, increases the likelihood that men will suffer, and continue to suffer after

being trained to kill for the military. This also contributes to why we may not have an accurate

reading of exactly how many men suffer from stress disorders after serving in the military. Men
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 7

find it more difficult than women to reach out and utilize the resources available to them.

Additionally, traditional therapy services, much like those provided by the Veteran’s Association,

are currently tailored toward women. This is, in part, because “people who request

psychotherapeutic services have often been stereotyped as ‘crazy,’ weak, or out of control. This

stigma makes it difficult for almost anyone to come to counseling, but it is especially difficult for

men, who often place a special value on being rational, self-sufficient, strong, and in control”

(Kilmartin & Smiler, 2015, p. 275). Likewise,

Counseling is an activity in which clients are usually expected to perform certain

behaviors thought to be helpful in solving emotional problems. These behaviors

often include emotional self-disclosure, exploration of feelings, nondefensive

introspection (“looking inside” of oneself), and emphasizing interpersonal material.

Men sometimes have little experience in these areas, which are culturally defined

as feminine. (Kilmartin & Smiler, 2015, p. 276)

If, as therapists, we develop more gender-aware counseling methods, we might be able to better

assist those soldiers who have so bravely and selflessly sacrificed their innocence for the sake of

our country and our freedoms.

Though it seems unlikely we will be able to stop training men to kill if we want to continue

to have an effective military, if we are better able to understand the impact and psychological

consequences of learning to kill on the male psyche, we will be able to better provide resources to

men after service. In Kudo’s article, he states, “The only affirmation of my actions came through

the ubiquitous ‘Thank you for your service.’ Beyond that, nobody wanted to, or wants to, talk

about what occurred overseas” (Kudo, 2015). And while we so long have socialized men not to

talk about what ails them, they need to know others are out there who support them. These men

are asked on a daily basis to look at another fighter who looks so much like himself, and
KILLING FOR EROS: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEEQUENCES OF TRAINING TO KILL 8

dehumanize him to make a traumatic, personal decision on whether or not to use the power he

possesses and take that life in front of him. He has to consider whether letting this human live

would endanger more lives than killing him. And he only has one second to do it. One second to

battle Eros and Thanatos, life and death.

References

Grossman, D. (2009) On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society.

Revised edition. New York: New York: Back Bay Books.

Kilmartin, C. & Smiler, A. P. (2015). The masculine self. Fifth edition. Cornwall on Hudson,

New York: Sloan Publishing.

Kudo, T. (2015, February 27). How we learned to kill. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/how-we-learned-to-kill.html

Veteran’s Affairs, U.S. Department of. (2016). How common is PTSD? National Center for

PTSD. Retrieved from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/PTSD-overview/basics/how-

common-is-ptsd.asp