BOOK REVIEW: On Killing: LTC Dave Grossman

[scout1067]

On Killing: LTC Dave Grossman

This is a study of the psychological factors that enable a soldier to kill in battle and the mental cost of having done so.  LTC Grossman is a career infantry officer, military historian, and psychologist; however, he has no personal combat experience.  He relies on others to report their personal experiences of killing in combat.

The author?s basic premise is that men have an innate aversion to killing other men and that doing so causes mental anguish and harm.  He backs this assertion up with many interviews of veterans.  He also takes at face value the claims of S.L.A. Marshall about the firing ratio of American infantry in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.  These assertions have been shown to be false; indeed, it has been shown that Marshall inflated his own combat record.

I should preface my analysis by claiming that I am not a big believer in Psychiatric or Psychological theory.  It has been my experience that mental health professionals bring their own host of preconceived notions about the human condition to counseling and analysis that render their conclusions suspect in my eyes.  I find it hard to believe that somebody can tell me how I am feeling or thinking on the basis of a few hours of interviews.  This is not to say that I do not think mental health professionals are useful, I do, I just think their pronouncements and diagnoses need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In the initial chapters of the book Grossman comes off as a closet pacifist and I got the impression that he thought that everyone is a coward and those that are not are certifiably insane.  He claims that 98% of soldiers kill only reluctantly while the other 2% are actually psychopaths.  This is contrary to my own experiences.

He goes on to expound on modern training methods being able to overcome this reluctance to kill.  This trained ability to kill he claims leads to mental illness later in life specifically PTSD.  He cites example of Pavlovian conditioning and Skinner?s operant conditioning being present in modern training methods.  He claims that this explains the massive disparity in kill ratio when modern forces fight insurgents.

I was incredulous throughout most of the book.  However, the last few chapters made me rethink the author.  The final chapters are a discussion of the Vietnam experience of American soldiers.  He decries the lack of support soldiers received upon their return and blames this lack of support in part for the alarming number of mental health problems Vietnam vets experienced.  He ends with a call to action to ensure that future soldiers are never treated the way Vietnam vets were.  This is a sentiment I can agree with unreservedly.  It is also the only portion of the book with which I agreed.

He also includes a section blaming escalating violence in America on video games and movies.  He makes a persuasive argument, but one I find hard to accept.  He also makes the claim that violence in the media is part of some unwitting racist conspiracy because he claims that media violence is somehow more virulent among minorities and blacks in particular.  This argument I find especially ludicrous.

I personally thought the book was mostly a joke.  I agree with the author?s premise that support on the home front is crucial but disagree with his reiteration of the firing ratio numbers.  My own experience and research by others proves the lie of the low number of soldiers firing.  I also do not buy his 98% afraid to kill numbers.  This based on experience as well.  Almost every soldier in my section got a kill while deployed in 2004, I do not remember any of them being anguished then nor have any confessed this to me since, and I am in contact with most of them.  I personally only feel bad about one of my kills, and he was an innocent caught in the crossfire.  However, I am by no means anguished over it.

Lastly, if men are so loath to kill how does this explain mans predilection for war.  I have to call foul on this one.  It is ludicrous to think that men are afraid to kill given the wealth of historical examples that show otherwise.  I took special offense at his claims of latent racism.  He obviously approaches his subject from the political left and this view permeates everything that he has written.

[HowardCohodas]

On Killing: LTC Dave Grossman
I should preface my analysis by claiming that I am not a big believer in Psychiatric or Psychological theory.

Pretty well cuts off any meaningful dialog, doesn't it? All that remains is the trading of opinions.

I've met LTC. Grossman. I don't recognize the person you describe in your review.

[scout1067]

I have also met him, and I don't recognize the person that wrote this book.  I think it is a travesty and he obviously does not understand the process of killing as much as he thinks he does.

[HowardCohodas]

I have also met him, and I don't recognize the person that wrote this book.  I think it is a travesty and he obviously does not understand the process of killing as much as he thinks he does.

And when you discussed your concerns, what was his response?

[scout1067]

I had not read his book when I met him.  Indeed, it was his reasonableness in person that partially led me to read the book as well as the wide critical acclaim it has received over the years.  I only met him briefly and heard him speak. 

I fail to see how my personal analysis cuts off dialog.  I have simply called BS to the notion that the act of killing has the effects on the human psyche claimed in this book and have explained my reasons for thinking this.  By all means, if you disagree, say so.  I am not making a personal attack on Mr. Grossman, nor is that my intent.

[Vulture6]

While I have not read Grossman's book - I skimmed it when it came out and decided to leave it on the bookshelf - I think that any sweeping statement that 98% of people will react a certain way is flawed.  Personal experiences are many, and people's motivations are varied. 

98% of people are probably reluctant to kill in cold blood -- that's humanity.  But given certain circumstances and motivations, people's desire or reluctance to kill will no doubt change... especially in war.  Once your unit has sustained casualties I would postulate that anger, hatred, and revenge will motivate people to be much more willing to pull the trigger - as will distance from the target.  Would it be fair to include artillerymen in his argument?  Would 98% of gun crews be reluctant to kill if the target is 15 klicks away?  How about a pilot dropping ordnance from 20,000 feet?  Or the weapons folks from an FFG launching a missile at a target 50 miles away?  Does it change when the range of engagement is only a few feet?  Obviously the emotional trauma suffered is different when the victim's (enemy's) blood is literally on your boots.

The main reason I discounted the book when it came out was his lack of combat experience.  Not that that disqualifies anyone from commenting on killing, but someone who has never been in combat will have certain credibility issues when he is talking to (or writing to) those who have been.

Just my two cents - and since I didn't read the book my opinion may be worth less than that.

[Wally]

....
The main reason I discounted the book when it came out was his lack of combat experience.  Not that that disqualifies anyone from commenting on killing, but someone who has never been in combat will have certain credibility issues when he is talking to (or writing to) those who have been.

....

And so, since most combat vets are verrry reluctant to tell their stories the best we can hope is someone will get them to speak up and pass it along.

My mentors were a Ranger and one of Brad Smith's boys.

[scout1067]

It has been my experience that most of the guys who tell lots of combat stories probably were deployed but never went out the gate.

[HowardCohodas]

Precluding any invocation of science, i.e. psychiatry or psychology, or academic credentials, I've looked elsewhere to see how LTC Dave Grossman is evaluated on his writing.

I came across the US Marine Corp Reading List, updated December 27, 2007. LTC Grossman has two books on the reading list. I could find no other author with more than one book.

Extracted from US Marine Corps Reading List:

• Gunnery Sergeant
  On Combat : the Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace by Dave Grossman with Loren W. Christensen
• Master Sergeant / First Sergeant
  On Killing : the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman
• Captain / Chief Warrant Officer 3
  On Combat : the Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace by Dave Grossman with Loren W. Christensen

For me, that is sufficient to establish his veracity.

[scout1067]

Here is a great link to a discussion of the absurdity of some of grossman's claims:  http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Main.htm and here http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm  SLA Marshall's analysis has been in dispute for years See here:http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1989/2/1989_2_36.shtml and that is a cornerstone of Grossman's theory.  I fail to see how a questionable theory based on a suspect theory with suspect data is sound.

In addittion, the inclusion on a service's reading list does not automatically mean that a book is true, only that the service thinks it is relevant.  A few years ago, Shaara's The Killer Angels was on the army reading list and that is a work of fiction.  If you are willing to accept the veracity of On Killing based on its inclusion in the Marine Corps reading list then that is Ok, you are free to believe what you want.  The Marine Corps also includes some selections by Ambrose, a confirmed plagiarist does that mean he gains credibility as well by his inclusion?

I get that you disagree with my analysis of the book.  That is fine, I have simply offered my opinion on the book based on my own experiences in combat.

[HowardCohodas]

For me the purpose of dialog is to learn. Whether I agree or not, I'm always trying to learn something about the premises upon which my conclusions are based. On occasion someone has brought something to my attention that has resonated with me and caused me to reevaluate my premises and draw different conclusions.

I am familiar with the references you provided. Google is my friend. 

Ad hominem attacks as argument have little effect on my thinking, whomever the source.

The Marine Corps also includes some selections by Ambrose, a confirmed plagiarist does that mean he gains credibility as well by his inclusion?

This, unfortunately for me, is so far over the top for the mistakes he made, I am now having difficulty taking much of what you say as an opportunity for me to learn anything.

[skiguy]

Ambrose and plagiarism

[HowardCohodas]

Ambrose and plagiarism

I have read that article as well as several others of the 67,500 listed when I did the search on Google. That was how I came to the conclusion that plagiarism was over the top in describing what Ambrose had done.

If you feel differently, I would be interested in your conclusions and the reasons for them.

[skiguy]

If you feel differently, I would be interested in your conclusions and the reasons for them.

I'm just reacting more to your "over the top" comment.  I think any type of plagiarism is not good, especially if it's an academic work. And in my own personal opinion, it does affect an author's credibility.

[HowardCohodas]

If you feel differently, I would be interested in your conclusions and the reasons for them.

I'm just reacting more to your "over the top" comment.  I think any type of plagiarism is not good, especially if it's an academic work. And in my own personal opinion, it does affect an author's credibility.

Something for you to consider. In most things in life, there are shades of gray, not just black and white. For someone who puts his name on someone else's work as someone who has a ghostwriter and does not acknowledge it, it would not be over the top to call them a plagiarist. I can nowhere find a reference to Ambrose committing such an egregious act. What he did was careless and deserving of censure. I do not think it deserves the tone used by the OP, and therefore does not make the attempted point.