On Killing

Rating:
Summary: An insightful, ground-breaking study on why man kills man
Review: Dave Grossman has written perhaps one of the most insightful books on what motivates men in combat since S.LA. Marshall's "Men Against Fire". Grossman combines the thoroughness of an learned psychologist with the practical viewpoint of a lifetime dedicated to military service. He provides us with a unique and truly fascinating look into the dark and often terribly painful mental process that brings a man to pull the trigger and kill his fellow man. As an officer in the Army, I consider this book an essential read for anyone who may someday bear the burden of leading men in combat. We often get such a distorted view of remorseless killing from the popular media that most of us are shocked to discover that the act of killing a man at close range is something that very few soldiers are capable of. In a similar fashion to S.L.A. Marshall, Grossman demonstrates with overwhelming evidence how the vast majority of soldiers are tremendously reluctant to kill, frequently prefering to risk their own death instead. The book offers such a profound and important perspective on the nature of warfare at the human level that I suspect it will some day be part a curriculum for training officers and non-commissioned officers on combat leadership. Although the book's primary focus is on the nature of killing in warfare, his conclusions have relevance for anyone concerned with the problem of violence in society. One of Grossman's most useful conclusions is the suggestion that virtual reality video games allow their users to overcome the natural reluctance to kill by gradually desensitizing the mind to violence. This erosion then makes it easier for those who are pre-disposed to aggressive violence to act on their desires in a violent way. With the recent string of high school shootings, Grossman's hypothesis has immediate relevance to current social issues. In fact, he has been a frequent commentator on these tragedies with several national news networks. In summary, Grossman's book peers cautiously into the darker side of man's nature to understand what drives him to kill in combat. What he finds there is vastly different from what we are taught to expect- simply that the vast majority of people are unable to look a fellow man in the eye and kill him even if his own life may be at stake. The forces that allow him to overcome that reluctance in the heat of battle include peer pressure, leadership, training, and physical distance and are examined in great detail.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative, though flawed
Review: Grossman's book can completely change the way you look at war and violence. He provides compelling evidence that most of the soldiers before the 20th century were just going through the motions, and that war has only become a truly savage event since the advent of artillery, machineguns and intensive infantry training.

This book on "killology" (Grossman's term) gave me a lot of food for thought about who is capable of killing, what the experience of killing is like, during and after, and whether the capacity for killing can be changed. It's reassuring that most people are extremely reluctant to kill (at least face to face), but disturbing that the methods for overcoming that reluctance have improved greatly in this century.

He also does a good job explaining why Americans committed atrocities in Viet Nam, and why returning veterans were more psychologically damaged than any other war in American history. (Personally, I have a problem with the argument that Viet Nam vets needed a "heroes' welcome home" to heal their psyches. It's hard to give that kind of reception to soldiers who fought in a conflict you don't consider morally justifiable.)

Grossman ventures way out of his element in the last section of the book, where he tries to explain the increasing incidence of violence in American society. He glosses over issues like poverty, racism, drugs, availability of firearms and other factors contributing to violence, and places the blame on increased violence in the media, claiming it is the only variable that has changed over the past fifty years. Grossman's theory works in the military because the soldier is isolated from all those other factors. Not only does he provide no statistical evidence for this claim, failing to name any of the "over 200 studies" showing a correlation between television watching and violence, Grossman's analysis of video games, TV and movies and their audiences is much too simplistic.

Even his explanation of why the aggravated assault rate has increased almost nonstop over the last fifty years while the murder rate has held relatively steady doesn't quite wash. And if the massive number of criminals in prison is holding down the murder rate, what about all the non-violent offender inmates?

The thesis of "On Killing" is plausible, but it isn't as thoroughly grounded in evidence as it could be. Grossman draws on military statistics and records to make his case, but he sometimes cites anecdotes that sound a little too pat to be true. They read more like the military equivalent of urban legends. Still, Grossman's book will make you think in new ways about violence, war and human nature.

Afterthought: A lot has happened in America since this book came out. I'm curious to know what Grossman would make of Timothy McVeigh, a trained soldier and expert marksman, who once refused orders to kill fleeing Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War, but then killed 168 American civilians a few years later. He'd probably have some strong thoughts on Columbine as well.

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating study
Review: ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become blasé towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent for the educated layman, as well
Review: Although I claim no expertise in psychology or warfare, nor do I claim experience in anything of military nature, I found this book to be an enlightenment, especially in the face of the grandiose war stories that some authors prefer to tell.

Grossman brings to light the reality of killing and war, and man's own internal mechanisms that resist the violence and horror that killing one's own kind entails. Having grown up with a veteran of Korea, I have only experienced the profound silence that my father exudes, his total unwillingness to relate his activities or experiences surrounding his military service. I believe that this book gave me understanding of my father's pain, if it could not teach me to empathize.

Although I question the authors conclusion that society is desensitizing us to enjoy, or at least easily perform, the act of killing, I find his evidence persuasive. This book is a simple joy to read, and it SHOULD be read, by anyone interested in the horror and confusion of war, or interested in the deepest parts of the nature of man.

Rating:
Summary: Similarities of Soldiering and Selling
Review: I read this book and I review it here not because of any particular interest in sanctioned killing, rather because of my interest in institutional means of getting people to do difficult yet important tasks. I train salespeople and other business leaders.

I first heard the author, Dave Grossman, on a radio interview promoting this book. I heard him say that that in the history of combat from Alexander the Great through World War II only about 15% of soldiers in battle were trying to kill the enemy. He's not talking about the long administrative and logistical tail of the army. Only 15-20% of the people with guns or swords in their hands, facing an enemy trying to harm them, were willing to kill that enemy. I know this is hard to believe. I first heard this statistic from a pacifist and I called him a liar. Then I heard it from this author, a former US Army Colonel and military historian, who references the research of the US Army's official W.W.II historian as well as many other scholars.

Once one accepts this fact, two questions immediately present themselves: "Why?" and "What to do about it?" The first question is easy: most humans have a deep and strong taboo against looking a person in the face and destroying them. Many would literally rather die than cross that line. The second question is more complex and hugely interesting.

Clearly, if only 15% of the assets you have expensively brought to face an enemy are performing, your army has a major problem. The US Army raised this traditional firing rate from 15% up to 50% between W.W.II and the Korean conflict and again to better than 95% in Vietnam and Desert Storm. The British similarly increased their firing rate, to devastating effect in the Falklands against Argentines still performing at traditional levels. All modern militaries have since solved the problem. How?

The low firing rates have been cured by the new ways modern militaries train and lead soldiers. This is where my interest as a trainer of business leaders and salespeople is piqued. I have long noted that the biggest problem with most sales people is that they will not do the uncomfortable or unfamiliar things necessary to make more sales faster. It is not a knowledge problem, it is a performance problem. I figured that if the Army could get most ordinary men to pull the trigger, similar methods ought to get most typical salespeople to dial the telephone.

Grossman reports five factors which influence (determine?) the likelihood of a person to kill: Predisposition of Killer, Attractiveness of Target, Distance from Target, Group Absolution, and Demands of Authority

Many of these factors were well understood and widely practiced in the days of 15% firing ratios. This may be how armies got beyond relying on the 2% of the population willing to kill in combat without dramatic prompting or remorse. A huge gap in combat performance remained because, "When people become angry, or frightened, they stop thinking with their forebrain (the mind of a human being) and start thinking with their midbrain (which is indistinguishable from the mind of an animal). They are literally "scared out of their wits." The only thing that has any hope of influencing the midbrain is also the only thing that influences a dog: classical and operant conditioning." [p. xviii]  The big change came when the US Army began, perhaps unintentionally, to incorporate the behaviors demonstrated by Pavlov and B. F. Skinner and made training much more realistic, repetitive, and rewarding.

"World War II-era training was conducted on a grassy firing range..., on which the soldier shot at a bull's-eye target. After he fired a series of shots the target was checked, and he was then given feedback that told him where he hit.

"Modern training ... comes as close to simulating actual combat conditions as possible. The soldier stands in a foxhole with full combat equipment, and man-shaped targets pop up briefly in front of him. These are the eliciting stimuli that prompt the target behavior of shooting. If the target is hit, it immediately drops, thus providing immediate feedback. Positive reinforcement is given when these hits are exchanged for marksmanship badges... Traditional marksmanship training has been transformed into a combat simulator." [p. 177]

And the citizen soldier has been transformed into a reliable killing machine: "When I went to boot camp and did individual combat training they said if you walk into an ambush what you want to do is just do a right face - you just turn right or left, whichever way the fire is corning from, and assault. I said, 'Man, that's crazy. I'd never do anything like that. It's stupid.' The first time we came under fire, ... in Laos, we did it automatically. Just like you look at your watch to see what time it is. We done a right face, assaulted the hill -- a fortified position with concrete bunkers emplaced, machine guns, automatic weapons -- and we took it. And we killed - I'd estimate probably thirty-five North Vietnamese soldiers in the assault, and we only lost three killed." [p. 317]

Contrast that with the report of a commander in W.W. II: "Squad leaders and platoon sergeants had to move up and down the firing line kicking men to get them to fire. We felt like we were doing good to get two or three men out of a squad to fire." [p. xiv] Sounds a lot like what I hear from sales managers. Perhaps because salespeople, like soldiers, find they must transgress strong taboos to be successful, for example, intruding on strangers, talking about money, and persisting past, "No," to name only three. The salesperson's taboos are clearly of a lesser import than the soldier's, yet the parallel is strong. Both the soldier and the salesperson suffer when they fail to transcend taboos, even though ignoring them is crucial to success and permission has been granted.

Redesigning a salesperson's training to take advantage of these well demonstrated methods of behavior modification can have a similarly spectacular effect. Another key to enhanced salesperson performance evident from Grossman's work is the value of on-the-job group dynamics. "Numerous studies have concluded that men in combat are usually motivated to fight not by ideology or hate or fear, but by group pressures and processes involving (1) regard for their comrades, (2) respect for their leaders, (3) concern for their own reputation with both, and (4) an urge to contribute to the success of the group." [p. 89] Many sales organizations, by contrast, pit salespeople against each other and minimize the role of sales managers. It is a world of lone wolves, though teamwork and leadership are demonstrated multipliers of effectiveness. How much of a multiplier? Modern armies  have faced similarly equipped, by traditionally trained enemies and killed 35 to 50 of their adversaries for each soldier lost. [p. 197] Salespeople trained, organized, and lead on this model can also expect order-of-magnitude improvements.

Rating:
Summary: A Powerful Refutation of the Soldier's Bloodlust
Review: Those who have never had the privilege of serving in America's armed forces invariably believe the Hollywood depiction of the modern soldier as a soulless killing machine. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman shows in his groundbreaking study of killing in war, nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember the steely-eyed warriors who descended on Normandy, Anzio, Guadalcanal, and a host of other blood-soaked battlegrounds during World War II? Only one in five of these combat infantrymen were willing to fire their rifles.

Shocking? Surely, given the popular depiction of our fighting men. But military training has never been able to fully eradicate the innate resistance of killing one's fellow man amongst the common soldiery.

Yet we're getting better at it, with disturbing implications for our society. Grossman's data shows that the current crop of soldiers, raised on graphic violence in movies and video games, is much more willing to slay the enemy. This is undoubtedly a good thing from a purely military point of view. However, the cost is a consequent desensitization to the suffering of friend and foe alike, and psychological trauma which lasts long after the firing stops.

The introduction of women into combat situations has not slowed the inexorable trend toward a more savage soldier. During training to endure potential captivity as prisoners of war, male soldiers are taught to conquer their natural tendencies to protect females through an active desensitization process (a soldier is a soldier, whether male or female; we all signed up for this, etc.) What impact this has once these brave men return to society is uncertain, but you can bet that one cannot turn their humanity on and off like a light switch.

A profound and disturbing study which belongs in every library.

Rating:
Summary: Something For Everyone!
Review: This book has something in it for nearly every one of us in the way it examines a part of life and the way we relate to it. That part of life is death, and the way people react to it under varying circumstances is investigated thoroughly. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, (Ranger Ret.), taught Psychology at West Point and shows the psychological side of this little understood subject.

What must be thousands of statistics are gathered into a volume that isn't dry and sleep inducing. We read about how we all are surrounded daily with death, from military action to fetching a chicken for Sunday dinner to setting a mousetrap and much more. Grossman's even discussed the way The Bible views the difference between killing and murder, telling where examples of each are even found on the same page.

As an example of the information we find, it tells why the eyes of the enemy are considered the 'gateway to the soul', and why warfare over the centuries has gradually distanced opponents from each other. It speaks of the moral difficulty individuals had with directly facing the enemy, and of gradual distancing at pike's length, artillery, and then the airplane's bombadier. He felt little or no guilt at letting tons of high explosive loose over populated areas that were just indistinct grids. Those have no relation to the men, women and children far below, and the flight crews didn't feel the guilt or reluctance they would have in facing the victims.

Along the same vein, Grossman talks about the traditional blindfold or black hood used at executions.

A particularly disturbing observation he makes is in how similar military and police firearms training/conditioning methods are to much of the video entertainment for children in recent years. Games are not often based on things like how many checkers can be captured from the other guy, but on how many human-like figures behind the glass screen of a video game can be 'killed' in a given time. Influences like that might very well contribute to the violence among students recently.

I was fascinated by this from the first to the last page, as has everyone I've recommended it to been Small wonder it's a Pulitzer nominee, a text at West Point, used by Law Enforcement training coast to coast, and more.

Rating:
Summary: Read it for your own peace of mind and for all veterans.
Review: Lt. Col. Grossman has contributed to the mental health of innumerable peace officers and soldiers by writing this book. As both a decorated veteran and peace officer, I can attest to many of the topics presented inside its pages. I have used much of the material in my training courses and most recently to assist one of my fellow Vietnam Veterans. I cannot recommend it too highly. It is truly a pioneering work in the field.

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating study
Review: ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become blasé towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

Rating:
Summary: How would you do as a soldier ordered to kill?
Review: As a writer of action/adventure screenplays, the subject of death seems always present in my writing. My first script had the hero shooting truckloads of bad guys with no worries. This unconcerned attitude speaks to the desensitization of youth that Grossman discusses in this terrific book about the human condition.

Raised in an upper-middle class household where toy (and real) guns were not allowed and in the shadow of the movies and TV of the 1970s through the present, I've grown up a little curious as to how I would fare in a situation where it was kill or be killed. How would I do as a soldier ordered to kill?

Grossman's detailed examination is carefully laid out and supported by impressive facts and numbers. But the book does not get bogged down in detail. If you're interested in this topic, you will not be bored or disappointed.

Other reviewers have commented on Grossman's stance on video games. If one reads that small section carefully, Grossman is not talking about console(Xbox, Gamecube, or PS2) games or those on your PC. He is explicitly discussing those few video games found only in arcades where the player stands before a large screen and using a light gun, "fires" at targets in front of them, a situation very similar to that of soldiers and police officers training for "shoot/no-shoot" situations. And actually, some of these games do present negative "conditioning" for harming innocents, which Grossman doesn't mention. Yet I do understand there are games that are too graphic in their depiction of violence, even on the console and PC systems. However, I believe game designers are growing aware these days of the lines to not cross.

What is Grossman's point is that standing there, firing a (albeit plastic) handgun at human targets is very similar to what the military and police forces are doing for their soldiers to become conditioned to fire without question. This indeed is a worrisome concept.

Great points:
1. Grossman's findings about the amount of muskets in the Civil War at Gettysburg that were double/triple/... loaded because men pretended to fire and then look busy reloading.
2. The crunching of numbers and kill percentages across the major US and other conflicts. Fascinating in terms of the psychological conditioning that takes place between them to increase kill rates.
3. Grossman's analysis of what went wrong with vets returning from the Vietnam War. Their support structure here in America was almost nonexistent for all the trauma they had to endure in battle. I hope the government works hard in terms of soldiers returning from the Middle East to give them a great support system. We owe this brave souls so much for their sacrifice. Grossman's book makes me want to thank every vet from every war that I see from now on. From Grossman's writing, it's apparent that civilians cannot grasp what soldiers go through and the toll it takes on their psyche.

I now have a better idea how hard it is to do what soldiers have to do and live with. Thanks to Grossman, in the very least, my screenplays and stories will be more sensitive to the violence they describe.