Thy Will be Done - Book Report/Review Example

Thy Will be Done Order No. 806740 Introduction ity over others can reduce a perfectly sane man to a bundle of nerves just by exercising it, butthe scar it leaves, could last a lifetime. Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman sheds light on this unique phenomenon of the impact of psychological cost on individuals who learn to kill in war and society. Experiments carried out by Dr. Stanley Milgram at the Yale University sheds highlights the phenomenon which helps us understand and analyze what it takes to silence a victim and the aftermath of its consequences in terms of its killer. The demands of authority could be insane, but their command is unquestionable, because they consider it their right that is established by tradition and implemented through laws in the society. Dr. Stanley Miligram enlightens us on the subject of obedience and aggression in relation to the human mind and the way it works in such conditions. In this essay, we would be discussing the element of the demand of authority, in relation to how humans reciprocate and fulfill this demand. According to the studies of Dr. Stanley, authority is demanded by people in higher positions and obedience is expected without questioning the action that is demanded. He gives us an example to prove his statement by shedding light on military authority who demand obedience from their subordinates without question of whether the action executed is acceptable or not. People who join the military automatically fulfill the demands made by the authority because they are trained to observe obedience at all times. Those subordinates who are unwilling to fulfill authoritative demand are either punished or sent out. With regard to this aspect, leaders who exhibit firmness and decision of command possess the unquestionable right to exercise authority under any circumstance. Arguably, the individual bound by obedience may understand that the command is unreasonable, but however, he has no choice but to carry out the command. For example, a 1973 study by Kranss, Kaplan (Grossman, 143) investigating about the command to shoot on the battlefield explains that an individual who has no experience in combat may assume that if they were fired upon then it would be a critical factor for them to reciprocate the firing. However, on the other hand, veterans who have had a lot of battle experience know how crucial it is to just follow the authoritative commands of their leaders. Good leadership qualities are an indispensable factor to ensure the success of authoritative demand. However, studies conducted by Milgram (Grossman, 144) show that there are many factors that are involved in executing authoritative demand. The presence of the authoritative figure alone is not enough because there are other sub- factors that are involved in order for the operation to be a success. One of the most important factors is that the figure of authority should always be within close proximity to ensure obedience. For example, during Milgram’s study, an authoritative figure stood just behind an individual who was commanded to inflict shocks by increasing the voltage, on a victim each time he answered something incorrectly. However, when the figure of authority carried out the same command by telephone, many of them could not proceed to carry out the commands, proving that proximity of the person in authority is vital to the proper execution of the commands given. Strong bonding and respect for the leader in authority is vital for carrying out the demands. An Israeli study conducted in 1973, emphasizes that a discredited leader who is not quite familiar with his group has a poor chance of making their soldiers compliant for battle. On the other hand, a strong bond between the soldiers and their leader was the best most effective way to do their best when commanded of them. Intensity of the demand by an authority figure is another important factor for an operation’s success. It is not enough for the person in authority to be present, but communicating the urgency for behavior is vital. Arguably, in normal circumstances it is quite unusual for a human being to kill another human being, but in combat there is a clear expectancy to kill on demand. Even an example of behavior on the part of the leader could trigger the warranted killer activity by the group members. If the authority leader does not communicate his intention emphatically and clearly, then it is very unlikely that his command would be carried out. Last but not least, the legitimacy of an authority figure is very important to influence other officers or soldiers under his command. When a leader‘s position is societally sanctioned and his demands are legitimate, then there is all likelihood that he has a high potential of wielding a great impact on his soldiers and helping them overcome combat reluctance and individual resistance which is usually a hindrance to obeying the commands that authority demands. Military History since ancient times has proved time and again that one of the most vital and powerful influences for any successful military operation are the efficiency of good leadership. A good example of exceptional mastery of leadership can be found in Roman military because of their great successes and achievements accomplished throughout history. The primary factor for their success was because over the years, they pioneered the military concepts of leadership and learned their lessons from past mistakes. Therefore, the Roman military machine is revered for its mastery over leadership processes. (Grossman, 145) Good leaders have passed through the lower ranks of service and have demonstrated their abilities and skills in combat and therefore they are given the due honor and respect of a true leader. The military supremacy acquired by the Romans over the years made it possible for them to conquer the world. (Grossman, 146) Such examples of commanding leadership can be found during killing operations when an obedience – demanding leader influences his soldiers to kill on demand. For example, John Barry Freeman faced a pointed machine gun and orders to “Shoot that man” (Grossman, 146) which eventually made him kill a man who was his fellow mercenary but who was condemned to die. However, military successes brought about through combat and killings, act as a double edged sword that returns to haunt those involved in it. Both leaders and combatants experience deep feelings and emotions of guilt, regret and remorse about orders given and lives lost due to their command. Many of them are unable to get over their anguish and grief especially if the orders given by authority command were unwarranted or given by mistake. Most leaders cannot bring themselves to confront their demons and hence live in self denial for the rest of their lives. Reservoirs of guilt accumulate when soldiers of their own battalion lose their lives while adhering to the command given by their leader. Most leaders in authority feel immense guilt and wallow in self denial for losing people entrusted to his care. (Grossman, 148) Chapter two gives us deep insight into what motivates a soldier to kill or die. Research shows us that such acts are not performed for self preservation but it is the accountability and strong bonding between the leaders in authority and the combatants at the scene of battle. Richard Gabriel rightly points out that,…”the bonds combat soldiers form with one another are stronger than the bonds most men have with their wives.” (Grossman, Chap. 2, 149) Another motivating factor where killing is significantly increased is ‘group absolution.’ (Grossman, 151) The argument here is that in group absolution, though the killings are carried out, an individual remains anonymous and any sense of remorse or guilt rests with the whole group and not on any particular individual. Such a condition gives increased impetus to take part wholehearted during battle. Konrad Lorez, in his research rightly sums up this fact by stating that, “man is not a killer, but the group is.” (Grossman, 151) This helps to enhance the role of killing while reducing the burden of personal responsibility for both the leader in authority as well as the combatant. Erich Fromm in Chap. Three, (Grossman, 160) he explains that clinical evidence shows that the killer instinct can be motivated by leaders in authority by influencing his combat group to maintain distance with the opponent group. Distance here does not mean physical distance alone but it includes cultural, moral, social and mechanical distance. Leaders in authority hold the responsibility of training his group to maintain such distances so that he is capable of denying the humanity of his victim and becomes aggressive enough to terminate his opponent by emotionally withdrawing from any sort of empathy for them. To initiate or instigate an aggressive spirit, leaders in authority resort to various tactics. Some of these tactics include ‘Punishment Justification’ where justification is an accepted fact for the violence done. In this case the leader rationalizes that a criminal is being punished for his heinous crime so killing him is a justified act. Another common tactic made use of by people in authority is to kindle vengeance against the enemy. The command given by the leader in authority would be to think of themselves as an avenger who has come to destroy his enemy and get justice. Yet another tactic used to cause aggressive behavior in combatants is the legal affirmation that asserts the legitimacy to cause or empower violence. (Grossman, 166) In this case the moral responsibility of violent acts such as killing rests with legal affirmation and not with any particular party. Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, the author has clearly laid out the facts of what it takes for one human being to take the life of another and according to him, one of the most crucial factors that play a major role in initiating violence and aggression in a combatant is a leader in authority whose sole intent is defeating the enemy and emerging victorious after a battle. However, as earlier said, demanding obedience could act as a double edged sword which eventually boomerangs and brings with it feelings of guilt, shame and hatred that haunt them for the rest of their lives if not carried out in a morally binding manner. Though going to war is an inevitable part of life for people in military authority, yet, at least the immoral pitfalls and loopholes for manipulating others for personal reasons could be an issue that needs to be stopped. In my opinion, streamlining rules and regulations of what is just and legal and punishment for those who wrongly try to manipulate issues leading to innocent loss of life should be a step closer towards a better and safe world. Works Cited Grossman Dave, Lieutenant Colonel, On Killing. The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Little Brown and Company. Boston, New York. London. Read More