Honor the Soldier, Betray the Veteran
September 23rd, 2008 by Roman General
I am going to center a paper on the four marines who are being charged with war crimes, the one being Ryan Weemer who confessed to the FBI interviewer. I want to write this paper and do not think I can do so without the motivation of a deadline and a grade. I feel like it can be therapeutic for me as I have some issues with what Ryan said to get himself and his battle buddies charged with war crimes.
But, I can definitely see how his self-condemnation could have happened. I think that he had not even considered the actions and ramifications of his actions fully until the question was put to him.
How can this be possible you ask?
There is disconnection between everything human and what has to be done in combat. Imagine being in an unimaginable situation and having to do the unthinkable. How can this be done? A detachment between everything human and having to do the inconceivable resounds in combat.
Normal processes of everyday functioning operate at a higher level where not all stimuli remain in the processing centers. This input filters through the cognitive mechanisms placing the components of combined senses input to form decisions. This higher level conscious interactions in the mind can be circumvented in combat through defensive mechanisms triggered by the flight or fight response severing rationale.
An insignificant stimuli in the environment overlooked in combat because it was of no consequence to survival becomes a bit stored away as the filtering mechanism has been turned off. The presence of mind during heightened awareness from the engagement of the survival mechanisms bathes the neuropathways with neurochemical stress hormones causing the brain to register everything in the field of sight permanently etching the mind.
The mind receives all incoming signals and only responds to dangerous situations and dumps everything else into storage. The mounting messages become to much for the mind to handle so it creates divisions and compartmentalizes the information. Everything that does not register as a survival response including emotions, gets filed in the part of the mind that has been closed off. The attachments to emotions become detached this way and for some becomes more permanent than not.
Something about the conversion between Ryan and the interviewer triggered his confession. He broke and a flood of guilt driven remorse poured out of him seeking absolution, he could not stop until he had released the weight and magnitude of his actions.
Reading about all the second guessing of what constituents "lawful" warfare or "unwarranted" actions in a combat situation sickens me. To think that actions taken in THE most intensive combat engagement of the Iraqi War, are judging an incomprehensible situation. Imagine, your best friend has just been killed not to mention 93 of your fellow troops, three days of intense close-quarter combat, no sleep, do…ya think they ate much?
Now how do you think you would have reacted to the reply by way of radio,
"Are they dead yet?"
Posted in PTSD Perspectives
Interesting points RG.
How can anyone who wasn't there really second guess what should have been done in a combat situation?! I'm sure that all combat situations are different. That doesn't give anyone a license to do things that shouldn't be done but I think in combat situations soldiers should be cut some slack.
You are absolutly right Donna. But it is even worse than that. Some people distrust the military so much, that they can not even see much less understand the extenuating circumstances. That is one reason that RG needs to continue to tell some of these stories. Maybe someday, some of these people will learn something …
I understand the horror of the thought of our men in combat arms killing enemy soldiers under their direct control. Especially if those detainees are not armed and are under cover of our troops' arms at the time, it may seem especially heinous that violence is perpetrated on those detainees at the surface level of perception. However, if one is to regard the full dynamic of the situation, it is altogether far more complicated that one would expect.
As an example, imagine that you have a family that is being threatened by assailants desiring to use deadly force against your loved ones, whether your children, your wife or husband, your brothers and sisters, or your parents. If you are armed and capable of defending yourself and your loved ones, and you "get the drop" on some of your enemies, then are called to continue your battle against other enemies, you have a decision to make. First, let us say that the situation is such that there is no one available to guard your captives, nor is there any way to guarantee their continued restraint in your absence. Secondly, you know that if these captives are freed or free themselves, they will continue to be a direct and very real threat to the lives of your family–their goal in life is to kill your loved ones. As soon as they find a way to free themselves, they will come looking to kill your children, your wife, your brother. In fairness to your family, will you not terminate the very real threat to them if you have no other choice?
Anyone who has ever been in combat with a tight knit unit understands that the people within that unit consider themselves to be family, and they will do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of their brothers. Typically, the love and loyalty is so intense that they will risk their very lives for one another.
Any person who would willingly allow the continuance of a direct threat to the lives of their loved ones, in the absence of a guaranteed permanent containment of that threat, is a person not fit to be a guardian of that family. Sometimes the situation demands that extraordinary measures be taken in defense of the family.
Steve Allen
Newman, IL
9/24/08