"I was just following orders"

                In 1963, scientist Stanley Milgram created a test to see how people would act under the influence of authority.  His test involved two subjects, one playing the role of a teacher while another plays the role of a student.  The “student” is actually a paid actor while the “teacher” is the person whom the experiment is being conducted on.  The study is falsely portrayed as a memory test when in fact it was a test to see if someone would cause fatal harm to another person while being told to do so by an authority.  I have included videos from youtube which illustrate the exact workings of this experiment.

                This experiment showed that atrocities and murder could easily be committed if someone with authority were to command that it be done.  In the military, soldiers are trained to follow orders and to do what the commanding officer tells them to do.  Many times the soldiers commit brutal and horrific acts with the excuse that “I was just following orders”.  In fact, it is punishable by death if a soldier were to disobey a lawful command by an officer.  If, however, the command is unlawful, the soldier is obliged not to follow the order.  If he does follow the order, both he and the commanding officer deal with the consequences of their actions.

                A famous example of soldiers following horrific orders were the Nazi troops in World War II.  They senselessly executed millions because they were told to do so.  Many did this without remorse or any sense of responsibility.  Another example is the dropping of the atomic bomb on cities in Japan.  The man who flew the plane that dropped these bombs is Paul Tibbets.  Tibbets is quoted saying “I sleep clearly every night”.  This shows just how little responsibility he takes for his actions because he knows that he was ordered to drop the bombs by the president of the United States.  In Tibbets’ mind he is not at all to blame for taking part in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Atrocities in War

Throughout the recent war in Iraq, it was not uncommon to hear reports about acts of absurd cruelty and inhumanity being committed by none other than our American soldiers.  These acts included rape, humiliation, and publicly beating prisoners who had not even been proven to be the enemy.  When I heard about these acts being committed I could not believe that it was our own troops, the men and women who served to protect our nation, who were committing them.  Through further research, I began to understand the exact types of catalysts which would drive a person to commit such horrible atrocities.

The main reason that these acts are committed is frustration and aggression.  Being a member of the armed forces is a job which invites huge amounts of stress and frustration.  Many soldiers know someone who has died in combat.  Others see the horrors of war and resent the fact that they are a part of it.  These horrific acts are then committed in many prisons as a retaliation of sorts.  It is the soldier’s own deranged and twisted way of getting back at those whom they believe have wronged them.

The other reason that these incidents occur is the sense of power and of invulnerability.  The soldiers who work in prison camps have complete power over their prisoners and are many times left unsupervised by superior officers.  This creates a mind-set that they have the ability to do anything and nothing can stop them.  If that mind-set is combined with the frustration caused by being involved in war, the results are actions which the soldier may not normally be inclined to do.  This may explain the reason why so many soldiers have committed crimes in war that both shock and disgust those whom they know and those who read about these actions.

    Source:   http://health.indiatimes.com/articleshow/articleshow/669291.cms

Band of Brothers: America's Greatest Heroes

                One of my all time favorite war stories is Band of Brothers, a book turned HBO mini-series which follows a company of Paratroopers through their ordeal during World War II.  This true story is told from the view point of several specific men as they travel from the beaches of Normandy all the way to one of the first discovered concentration camps.  The story is divided into ten chapters, each an hour long, and shows how war affects each character in different ways.  The only effect that all of these men shared was the sense of trust that they each had for one another.  Without each other, these men would surely have died over seas.  I would like to point out a few characters and how war effected each of them.

                One character whom I found to be extremely interesting was Private Blythe, the main character of the third installment of the series.  Blythe quickly succumbed to the condition known as “shell-shock” and was terrified each time his company went into combat.  At one point, the horrors of war became too much for Blythe and he lost his eyesight for no apparent reason.  While being helped at the make-shift hospital that the American army had set up, a medic made note of the fact that Blythe’s ailment was quite real, if only in his own head.

                Lieutenant Speirs takes the toll of war in the complete opposite way that Private Blythe took it.  Speirs has been quoted saying to Private Blythe that, “the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you’re already dead.  And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you’ll be able to function as a soldier’s supposed to; without mercy, without compassion, without remorse.  All war depends upon it.”  This outlook on war led Speirs to become one of the most decorated soldiers in World War II and helped him to gain the rank of captain.

                Staff Sergeant Guarnere is a soldier who learns that his brother was killed in combat right before the D-Day invasion.  Shortly after landing on the beaches of Normandy, Guarnere goes on a killing spree in which he disobeys orders and kills every German troop whom he comes across.  Guarnere rushes into each of these encounters without thinking about his own safety or the safety of his comrades and thus almost gets himself and his friends killed.  This is an example of how rage and other strong emotions can overcome a soldiers’ training in the heat of battle.  Throughout the rest of his time in the European theater of WWII, Guarnere is generally level headed but has the occasional tendency to have violent outbursts in combat.

EMDR Therapy: What’s the controversy?

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a serious psychological disorder that many soldiers experience after witnessing the horrors of war. Troops with PTSD re-experience a stressful, terrifying, and life-altering situation from their past—along with all of the emotions associated with that situation—repeatedly. One in six soldiers returning from Iraq experiences PTSD, so it is clear that the problem is widespread amongst those serving in the military. Without the appropriate psychological treatment to aid troops in coping with the extreme anxiety and depression associated with PTSD, suicide could very likely result.

Since 2004, the Veteran’s Association and the Department of Defense have chosen Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy as the choice therapy for troops who are suffering with PTSD. EMDR Therapy was developed recently by Dr. Francine Shapiro, who noticed that sweeping her eyes back and forth (during a moment when she re-experienced a stressful situation) helped to relieve the intensity of her anxiety.

EMDR melds cognitive-behavioral therapy with bilateral eye movements. During the course of EMDR treatment, patients are at first asked to identify the negative belief or event that is causing the source of stress, and are then asked to replace it with a positive belief or idea. In the next phase of EMDR treatment (desensitization), patients are asked to focus on the source of stress and the accompanying emotions while focusing on the therapist’s finger moving back and forth in front of the patient’s face. During the next few phases of the treatment, the patient is asked to focus on the new, positive belief while continuing to make the bilateral eye movements. In the final phases of EMDR therapy, therapists coach patients through several relaxation techniques to be used in between therapy sessions.

So why the controversy? While numerous studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, have suggested that EMDR is an effective therapy which does indeed help to relieve stress, many critics claim that there is simply not enough evidence to prove the validity of EMDR treatment. One of the main arguments against EMDR is that the traditional cognitive-behavioral techniques with which EMDR therapy overlaps are truly responsible for the recovery of patients who undergo this treatment. The cognitive reprocessing, for example, which patients are required to make while going through therapy (replacing the negative memory with a positive one) could in itself be the sole source of effectiveness for the treatment. Others argue that the exposure to the traumatic event—a primary component of the desensitization process—which is the effective component of other PTSD therapies is responsible for the effectiveness of EMDR. Both arguments rely on the notion that the bilateral eye movements which patients are required to make during the course of treatment are not necessary for the treatment to work.

Perhaps a bit of the “placebo effect “ is occurring within the use of EMDR treatment. Because both psychologists and patients want to believe that EMDR works—that the bilateral eye movements do indeed relieve stress—the therapy is more likely to prove effective for those who hold this viewpoint. For those who are more critical of the therapy and who conduct studies searching for flaws within the treatment, they are more likely to be affected by confirmation bias; they are more likely to look for negative results to support their preexisting ideas. When taking these factors into account, there is no clear cut answer as to whether or not EMDR treatment is effective.

So what’s my take on the issue? Truthfully, I don’t mind the use of EMDR as a primary form of treatment for those suffering with PTSD. All treatments in general have positive intentions—to help and improve the lives of those in need. Whether or not the bilateral eye movements of EMDR therapy actually do work, the whole point of the treatment is simply to help those who are emotionally afflicted. I say that if the therapy makes troops and other individuals feel better, why not use it?

For more information on EMDR therapy, click here or here .