Soldiers' Sense Making of Killing in Combat

SOLDIERS’ SENSE MAKING OF KILLING IN COMBAT: AN IN-

TERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Elio Martino

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Nottingham Trent

University and Southampton Solent University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

April 2016

This work is the intellectual property of Elio Martino. You may copy up to 5% of this work for private study, or personal, non-commercial research. Any re-use of the information contained within this document should be fully referenced, quoting the author, title, university, degree level and pagination. Queries or requests for any other use, or if a more substantial copy is required, should be directed in the owner(s) of the Intellectual Property

Rights.

Abstract

Within Military Psychology, there seems to be little scientific research looking at how soldiers experience and negotiate killing in combat. Whilst theories have suggested an innate, phobia like biological resistance to killing among humans (Grossman, 1995; Marshall,

1968), criticisms exist for this research, which range from contradictory, ambiguous results, to a lack of methodological rigour (Engen, 2009; Murray, 2013; King, 2013). Gener- ally, the literature suggests that whilst not a universal phenomenon, there seem to be degrees of resistance to killing amongst soldiers (Webber et al., 2013; Engen, 2008; Murray,

2013; King, 2013; Williams, 1999). This thesis addresses the gap in the literature, by exploring how combat soldiers make sense of and negotiate killing in combat.

Using an interpretative phenomenological approach, 7 autobiographies were selected from an initial list of 24 for study one, and 1 in depth semi-structured interview were analysed for study two, which elucidated the following themes: the warrior self, negotiating killing and death, group identity processes, decompression and validation to make sense of combat, and conflict to the self.

In conclusion, negotiating killing in combat was found not to be grounded on an innate resistance, but rather a complex combination of sense making of the self, based on the role of the infantry soldier, with strong moral and legal guidelines, and a sense of justice, freedom and democracy. In this way, killing in combat was accepted when it fit into the way the individual made sense of their role and experiences.

This thesis contributes to the underdeveloped field of killing in combat, by providing in- sight into the sense making of soldiers, and offers a detailed exploration of the warrior identity. This alternative way to study the phenomena experienced by soldiers in combat, has implications for evolving military, policy and strategy, specifically relating to the men-

III tal health of combat soldiers both after the military, and in unique combat environment, such as piloting drones.

Acknowledgements

Like any one who comes from a strong matriarchal family, and wishes to survive the mo- ments after said family read these acknowledgements, I would like to thank the love and support of the three most important women in my life: Belinda Warriner, Rosa Martino and Stephanie Clayton. Without you, there is no way I would have completed, or indeed even began this PhD. For that you will always have my gratitude, as well as the very real, undoubtedly empty promises of one day being paid back.

The phrase: ‘When you make plans, God laughs’ will give some indication behind the ex- traordinary circumstances that led to me being fortunate enough to have my Director of

Studies Dr Lin Bailey and second Supervisor, Dr Brian Wink. Regardless of how it came to be, I could not have asked for a more supportive team, both emotionally and intellectual- ly. Through the incalculable man hours of scrutinising every word of every page I ever wrote, to the dozens of emails back and forth with pithy titles such as ‘Final revised edi- tion343-lin comments#12’ has undoubtedly helped craft what was once a passion, into a strong piece of evidence-based research. Dr. Lin Bailey especially has been ‘in the trench- es’ with me since day one, with not only my PhD, but with my time as an associate lectur- er. For this I will be forever in their debt, which fortunately for me, can only be classified as priceless.

I owe Lt Col Dave Grossman a debt of gratitude for his work: On Killing, and On Combat, which introduced me to this fascinating area of study, which ultimately set my life path as a researcher within Military Psychology. Lt Col. Dave Grossman, an ex-serviceman and

Psychologist, has contributed significantly to the research of killing in combat, specifically

IV his work in Combat, which totally broke new ground in both describing physiological and

Psychological changes, which has helped countless people in the military and police. It has been a pleasure to work in a field with such intellectuals (and many others noted throughout this thesis) who continuously pushing the envelope, undoubtedly bringing about incalculable improvements to both the military, soldiers and police officer lives.

Many others have helped shaped my ability to be a better, more critical and fortunately for all of those reading, a more concise writer. Those include Stephanie Clayton, Joseph

Wareham, David Schwartzman, Daniel Watson and James Steele.

I would be negligent in not pausing to thank AM, my case study, who helped solidify some of the major concepts within this thesis, and who by a stoke a luck is a highly sensitive, introspective and well educated individual.

Finally a special mention goes to Jacques, Petra and Can, three scholars, who both helped me remain confident that my work has both merit and applicability, within the modern day military.

Elio Martino, April 2016.

Contents

Abstract III Acknowledgements IV Contents VI Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview of the Thesis 1 1.2 Organisation of the Thesis 2 Chapter 2 10 Why Can’t Johnny Kill? An Introduction to Soldiers Killing in Combat 10 Marshall, the Rocky Foundation 11 2.1 Moving Beyond Ratios of Fire: An Innate Resistance 17 Evolutionary Psychology 19 Limitations of Grossman’s altruistic species theory 20 Non-firers in history 27 Limitations to Grossman’s theory of conflict avoidance 28 Proximity to killing, and dehumanisation 29 The closer you are, the easier it is to kill you: limitations to Grossman’s Proximity to Killing theory 32 Demands of Authority 38 The Art of Persuasion: An Alternative Explanation to Obedience to Authority 40 Trauma to killing 43 An Unspoken Desire to Be in Contact: A Modern Military Perspective 44 Is The Kill Legitimate? Another Look at Psychological Trauma in Combat 46 Chapter 3 52 How Can Johnny Kill? 52 3.1 Who Is Johnny? A Masculine Warrior Perspective 54 A Phenomenological approach 62 Chapter 4 64 Methodology 64 4.1 Introduction to the Methodology 64 4.2 Transparency in Conducting Scientific Inquiry 65

Epistemology 65 4.3: Introduction to IPA 66 4.4 Philosophical Underpinnings of IPA 68 Phenomenology 68 Hermeneutics 69 Ideography and sample size. 70 Summary of phenomenology, hermeneutics and ideography 72 4.5 Applying IPA to the Current Study 73 4.6 Autobiographies and In Depth Semi Structured Interview 80 4.7 Textual Data Search 82 4.8 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria and List of Autobiographies 84 4.9 Study Two: Recruitment and Ethics for Semi Structured Interview 89 4.10 Semi-structured Interview and Interview Questions 96 Designing Interview Questions 98 4.11 Steps to Analysis Using IPA 101 Conducting High Quality IPA: rigour, reliability and validity 104 4.12 Summary 109 CHAPTER 5 112 ANALYSIS 112 5.1 Introduction to the Analysis 116 5.2 Analysis 120 5.3 Summary of Findings 168 Chapter 6 173 Killing in Combat 173 6.1 Introduction to Chapter 173 6.2 Analysis 176 6.3 Summary 192 Chapter 7 195 A Force for Good: Negotiating the Moral and Transitional Self 195 7.1 Introduction 195 7.2 Analysis 198 7.3 Summary 219 Chapter 8 222 It’s All About ‘Boots on the Ground’ 222 8.1 Introduction to the Chapter 222 8.2 Introduction to Jay, and Summary of Themes 224 8.3 Analysis 226 8.4 Part 2: Masculinity and Inhibition 240 VII

8.5 Summary 243 Chapter 9 247 Discussion: Johnny, the Complex Warrior 247 9.1 Introduction to the Discussion 247 9.2 Summary of Findings 249 9.3 The Warrior Self 252 The machismo of being a warrior 259 Sense making of killing in combat 262 9.4 Immersion into the Culture of the Group 266 9.5 Narrating Life Transitions and Warrior Calling 270 9.6 Summary 277 9.7 Limitations 281 Cultural differences 281 Sample size 282 9.8 Contributions to the Research 284 9.9 Implications and Further Research 289 References 295 Appendices 316 Appendix A: Ethical release checklist. 316 Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form 321 Appendix C: Research Debrief Sheet 324 Appendix D: Structure of interview and Semi Structured Interview Questions 330

VIII

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Overview of the Thesis

This thesis primarily sets out to investigate killing in combat, and how soldiers make sense of not only this role, but their self as part of a combat infantry unit. The field of killing in combat is an under developed area of military psychology, which has yet to explore, or take into account the testimonies, and experiences of modern days soldiers, in an in depth, qualitative, psychological analysis. Thus this thesis sets out to address a gap in the literature, by attempting to better understand how soldiers understand and navigate killing in combat.

Predominantly, theories have suggested an innate universal resistance to killing among humans (Grossman, 1995; Marshall, 1968). Criticisms exist for this research, which range from contradictory, ambiguous results, to a lack of methodological rigour (Engen, 2009,

Murray, 2013, King, 2013). Thus, whilst the literature suggests it is not perhaps a universal phenomenon, there seems to be varying degrees of resistance to killing amongst soldiers

(Webber et al., 2013; Engen, 2008; Murray, 2013; King, 2013; Williams, 1999). Building upon recent studies which investigated factors that may impact soldiers’ sense making of killing in combat (Webber et al., 2013), an interpretative analytical approach was utilised to explore soldiers’ experiences, and the way in which they make sense of their selves and their social world in relation to killing and in relation to resistance to killing in combat.

Killing in combat is a major component of the infantry soldier’s role, as such, it is some- what surprising more qualitative, in depth account of soldiers’ own testimonies have not

1 been investigated. As such, the research on if killing in combat is the main predictor of psychological trauma, is still debated. Despite numerous quantitative studies (MacNair,

2002; Maguen et al., 2010), the mechanisms underlying why and how some soldiers can kill in combat without trauma is conflicted and under investigation, requiring further atten- tion.

In the age of drone warfare, soldiers are engaging in combat without leaving their country of residence, or even, for that matter, a cubicle. This rapidly evolving theatre of warfare is a debated topic, which once again is confronted with the concern over killing in combat and psychological trauma. Despite being thousands of miles from a warzone, this research also requires the need to better understand the mechanisms behind negotiating killing in combat.

To this end, this thesis analysed 8 cases of soldiers from their respective infantry units. The

8 cases represented a range of elite and regular infantry units, from the UK and USA to provide a glimpse into the sense making of their role as an individual charged with killing in combat.

1.2 Organisation of the Thesis

To begin the literature review, Chapter 2 will introduce and outline the major research con- tributors to the killing in combat literature. Beginning with the origins of the resistance to killing in combat theory, the researcher outlines how Marshall (1968), a military historian, ground-breaking research, which changed the way in which soldiers were understood to experience combat. By extension, Marshall’s findings had a significant effect on the way the military approached training paradigms for soldiers. Indeed, Marshall’s legacy still casts a shadow over military psychology to the present day.

However, Marshall’s findings, have been a point of contention within the literature for over 20 years, based on his lack of methodological rigour, and non-scientific approach to data collection (Engen, 2009; 2011; Grossman, 2009; Williams, 1999; King, 2013). Based on this, Marshall’s work has been said to be moulded to suit a hypothesis (Williams, 1999;

King, 2013). Although Marshall’s research is not considered as significant as it once was, it still has an impact on modern day research, and remains significant in that it addressed some serious problems within the military research, one of which was a failure to take into account the human component to warfare (Murray, 2013).

Grossman (2009), is noted as the intellectual inheritor to Marshall’s concepts (Engen,

2008), in which he contributes to Marshalls concepts by adding more in depth, psychological theories to the resistance to killing in combat theory. Grossman’s work, which suggests an innate, biological resistance killing, is used by military and police training schools to inform policy, and has influenced the academic world of military psychology. However,

Because of these criticisms aimed at Marshall’s work, the validity of Grossman’s work has come under question, which although goes beyond Marshall’s findings, is still ambiguous, and at times contradictory (Engen, 2008). As such, Chapter 2 will explore Grossman’s proposals of how soldiers are conditioned to kill, to overcome this resistance to killing, and finally how they suffer the psychological consequences of doing so. These factors will also be contrasted with alternative and critical perspectives for each component of Grossman’s research.

To begin, Grossman (2009) turns to evolutionary psychology, in which he details fight or flight, posturing and submission techniques adopted by animals, and by extension humans, during combat. The theory draws on evidence which supports an evolutionary advantage to avoiding killing one’s own species, with numerous examples throughout history provid- ed by Grossman.

The researcher argues that far from being an evolutionary mechanism designed to save the species, the preference over non mortal combat is due to a deeply selfish mechanism based on survival, which is far more consistent with the evolutionary research, more in line with costs vs benefits (Engen, 2008; Dawkins, 2006; Wilson, 1980). Claims by Grossman

(2009) that animals do not kill their own species appear to be false, with chimpanzee warfare being a primary example, as well as among other mammalian species, often occurring when the risks of death are low (Wilson, 1980; Mitani, Watts and Amsler (2010)).

Secondly, the researcher explores Grossman’s (2009) evidence for non-firers in history, in which Grossman provides documented cases that throughout wars, soldiers avoided shoot- ing one another, even at a risk to their own lives. On focusing on the research that runs contrary to Grossman’s theory, the researcher outlines that guns left unfired on the battle- field may be the product of many other factors, including, anxiety of killing oneself or team mates, inaccuracy, and technical issues, as well as a complication of stress and over- load of working memory (Murray, 2013).

One of Grossman’s strongest arguments is that it is increasingly more difficult to kill; the closer one is to the enemy. The researcher explores Grossman’s (2009) evidence, including the effects of mechanical distancing (the use of technology to distance oneself), and how this impacts the resistance to killing theory. As a critique, the researcher investigates how the term Phobia to Killing in Combat may be misleading, because fear of death is a ra- tionale response to combat (Murray, 2013). This leads to an exploration of the proximity effect, outlined by Grossman (2009), and alternative explanations to why it may be more difficult to kill the closer you are to the enemy. In this way this the researcher explores issues such as: increasing the chance of death, the closer one is to the enemy (Murray, 2013), as well as the mechanical distancing from a sniper and UAV drone operator’s perspective, including PTSD rates for drone operators (Chapelle and colleagues, 2012).

Further, the researcher investigates mirror neuron research, and how they might play a role in ‘experiencing’ the same sensation as the individual being observed (such as pain), and the implications this has on the killing in combat literature. In light of this, it is argued that combat is a multi-faceted, complex experience, with many opportunities to witness ex- treme events, which may be troubling to an individual. These events are explored, with examples given, in the context of killing in combat.

The next section of this chapter investigates psychological research put forward by Gross- man to support his killing in combat theory, such as obeying an authority figure, based on studies such as Milgram’s obedience to authority (Haslam, Reicher, Millard & Birney,

2014; Reicher & Haslam, 2011; Milgram, 2010). The researcher offers an alternative conclusion to Milgram’s studies, showing that obedience to authority can occur when an ab- sence of a direct order occurs, and in fact the art of negotiation is an important part of Mil- gram’s findings (Gibson, 2013).

One of Grossman’s key contributions to this research area surrounds trauma after killing in combat: a reaction to overcoming this resistance (Grossman, 2009). Primarily, Grossman uses quotes from WWII soldiers, which details the trauma these soldiers experienced after killing in combat. In support of this, quantitative studies focusing on the prevalence of

PTSD among combat soldiers relating to kilning in combat are also included (MacNair,

2002; Maguen et al., 2010).

The researcher explores how comparing the testimonies of conscript and modern day soldiers might provide some direction as to why some individuals experience killing in combat and others do not. These transcripts lead to explore the variable rates of PTSD reported in studies (Webber et al., 2013) with the question raised; why are there highly variable rates of PTSD, and why do well over 50% of combat soldiers not meet PTSD sympto- matology? This chapter ends by exploring a social validation perspective, in which the

5 ways soldiers experience validating, or invalidating information about their killing have an effect on how they view their actions (Webber et al., 2013).

Chapter 3 focuses on what type of individuals volunteer to go into combat, and what this means for the killing in combat literature. The researcher explores who these ‘warriors’ are, what the term warrior means, and how it influences how they experience combat (Hen- riksen, 2007). From this, the role of masculinity in the formation of the ‘warrior’ or combat soldier concept is explored, with the implication that masculine concepts inform the way in which a soldier might view their role, as well as how they should behave and feel (Dun- canson, 2007).

Finally, this chapter asks the question of how best to explore killing in combat from a soldier’s perspective, to better understand how they experience killing, and make sense