Principally, the military trains soldiers for battle giving them the skills to fight and survive while in combat. The killings, which happen at the battlefield, have many dimensions and effects on the soldiers’ lives during and after the war is over (McKeogh, 2002). Soldiers kill the enemy to maintain our freedoms and keep the nation safe from uncertain deaths. As such, due to the nature of killing in war, most people hold that the act of killing is morally permissible. However, this may not be the case in the moral considerations of soldiers and can have adverse effects on their behavior and livelihood. Indeed, killing is a hard job to settle for, but many people do not understand the tasks that soldiers are bestowed to do at the battlefield (Roleff, 1999). After the First World War, the military began its psychiatric interventions and research into the reasons why soldiers were not ready to kill in war and the effects that active combatants faced after the war (Roleff, 1999). Conflicts thus present situations that prompt soldiers to kill, and the effects linger long after. However, it is hard for a soldier to confess to having killed an enemy combatant in the battlefield. In this regard, this paper addresses the long term and short term effects of killing in war, and how soldiers cope with the outcomes of such killings.
First, the most renowned effect of killing in war is post-traumatic stress, which is a disorder that mentally affects the people involved in combat (McKeogh, 2002). In most cases, soldiers kill from a long range, which is the most preferred to avoid a direct altercation with the enemy. Nevertheless, close-range killing is not avoidable as situations might prompt soldiers to do the inevitable. In the case a soldier chooses not to kill, his life can be taken instead. As such, the situation causes a hefty moral dilemma to soldiers. Long after the war, the moral dilemma haunts them and can develop to a disorder which needs acute psychiatric interventions to contain (Roleff, 1999). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a result of complex mental and moral interactions of the soldier. Therefore, due to its effects, soldiers might behave differently on the battlefield and after the war. For instance, while some may choose never to kill or even pull the trigger in the battlefield, others may lack adequate moral sovereignty to deal with the events and outcomes of war.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In recent wars, soldiers have refined their targeting and tactical competency making killing easier. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the implications of such easy and refined methods of exterminating the enemy. Moral sovereignty plays a big part in determining whether a soldier is likely to develop PTSD. Moreover, this aspect can enable a soldier to play by the rules of war and find it less haunting to kill. To this end, soldiers with low moral sovereignty are likely to develop PTSD compared to those with high moral sovereignty. Killing in war, and the fear that arises thereafter may affect the behavior of soldiers who. Posturing is a term used to explain the phenomenon of soldiers opting for the worst by putting their lives in the hands of the enemy to avoid killing. Other times, the flight takes over, and soldiers might choose to flee from combatants to avoid indulging in the actual killing.
Morality significantly plays a part in determining the life of a soldier after the war (Roleff, 1999). Moral considerations at the battlefield are likely to be replicated in the society, making most soldiers seem unfit to live in the normal community. Indeed, many people in the society do not comprehend the effects of war, and may not be aware of the traumatic disorders that soldiers may exemplify in society.
A study that was done recently on war veterans who were deployed to the battlefield and successfully returned showed an alarming trend in drug dependency. Indeed, a large number of soldiers deployed to war develop an acute need and dependence on alcohol to soothe their troubled thoughts (Grossman, 2014). The atrocities committed in combat can be a phenomenal trigger to alcohol dependency as one tries to drown the evil deeds which occurred during the war. Alcohol dependency has pushed many soldiers to live on the streets as the society is not ready for their traumatized minds (Grossman, 2014). Further, most families do not have a concise approach to treating the disorders that soldiers may develop in war, and the situation is escalating significantly. Moreover, soldiers who once headed families may lack the courage and morality to bring up a normal family and may end up abandoning their people (Roleff, 1999).
Interestingly, the dependency on alcohol is mostly evident on individuals who have not killed in close range. The soldiers who have had a chance to have an intimate or a close kill are usually not hooked to drugs, as self-preservation takes over their behavior. Self-preservation by some soldiers who have killed in war is caused by the heightened feeling of mortality. It is prudent to note that once a person takes out a life, a sense of vulnerability may take over and ultimately transform their behavior.
The effects of killing in war may cause psychological ailments to soldiers. As such mental health is an important element for soldiers to consider as they exit combat (Grossman, 2014). It is essential for the military to consider how soldiers interact with others in society after the war without engaging in unbecoming behavior. For example, some mental disorders may prompt soldiers to engage in frequent fights to suppress their anger and background experiences. Further, the psychological effects may make a soldier a threat to himself or herself thus creating the need for medical interventions (Grossman, 2014). In other scenarios, reckless living may ensue, endangering the life of the soldier affected by killing in war. Some soldiers even try to recreate the conditions of war in their own homes and avoid taking on the normal routines in society or family. In rare cases, the habit of killing may distort the mental orientation of a soldier, affecting their personalities. A popular psychological effect that soldiers may get after killing in war is the development of psychopathic personality, which may compel soldiers to kill for fun making them a grave danger to members of the immediate community.
Killing in war and its effects on soldiers are determined by various factors embedded in real combat (Roleff, 1999). The most common type of stressor that can change the behavior and mental orientation of a soldier are environmental stressors. Indeed, the state of war can be a complex environment for a new soldier, but this may not be a problem for veteran soldiers who are less affected by such stressors (Grossman, 2014). The close encounter with death, enemy combatant, and the death of colleagues can affect a soldier negatively. While it is not necessary for trauma to arise from actual killing, the close interaction with mass killing can have unforeseen effects on the livelihood of a soldier.
The surrounding conditions when a soldier makes their first kill can linger for a long time thus affecting their psychological status. Due to the traumatizing nature of killing, soldiers rarely like to relieve killing in war, or even talking to their fellow soldiers about it. Members of the military have thus coined different jargon terms to simplify the act of killing, or even admitting to a kill. For example, it is popular to hear jargons like bagging and dropping, which mostly signify killing. The use of jargon to mask the actual deeds of killing demonstrates the undertaking has affected most soldiers. As such, the use of jargon terms reduces the tendency of soldiers to victimize themselves after a kill, hence causing long-term mental troubles.
Conclusively, this paper has demonstrated the effects on soldiers by killing during wars and how it affects their lives long after the war is over. As such, it has been submitted that such killings predispose soldiers to Post-traumatic disorders, affect their moral sovereignty in society and may at times expose soldiers to drug dependency thus directly affecting families. Other issues that may arise include reckless living as a result of developing mental problems and a feeling of vulnerability as a result of killing the enemy in combat.
References
Grossman, D. (2014). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Open Road Media.
McKeogh, C. (2002). Innocent civilians: The morality of killing in war . New York: Palgrave.
Roleff, T. L. (1999). War: Opposing Viewpoints . San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven
