Soldiers and Warriors

Now that the New Year is here, I find myself looking back on 2012 and wondering; where the hell did it go?  Also, I guess due to the nature of the calendar and seasons, I find myself reflecting on the highs, lows, and what I’ve learned.  One of the things that stands out the most in my mind is, scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed on July 4^th, someone had “shared” a photo collection of Abu Ghraib, rather than quickly moving away from the post, I took time to look at the photos and wonder just what the hell happened to make things go so wrong with these people (the guards)?  How did a group of individuals band together with things going so horribly wrong?

 Part of the answer to that, I think, lies in what was discovered in the University of Michigan study several years ago during which, two groups of students were assigned roles of either prisoners or guards. The study was cut short after a few weeks due to the abuse the “guards” were perpetrating on the prisoner group and serious concerns arose regarding the health and physical safety of the prisoner group.  These were students who reportedly knew each other and knew it was a psychological study and still went over the edge in their treatment of what were at least associates if not friends.  Have you ever heard the phrase “there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.” I think to answer the question of how things go so far over the edge in these situations can be summed up as; “when a group is under stress or attack, there’s no such thing as an orphan.” When members of a group are placed under a stressor, they seem to instinctively focus on following a designated leader who emerges from the group and, more often than not, direct their attention to an “enemy” either perceived or real to solidify cohesion. When this happens, the group following their designated leader, will usually fall inline with whatever the leader decides to do even if under normal circumstance and alone, the individual knows what is being done is wrong and would not normally take those actions.  Don’t get me wrong at this point and think that I’m in any way trying to abrogate the individual responsibility for their actions, but to ignore the multiple instances of these occurrences would stymie any attempt to ameliorate these situations.  

It also begs the question, are all of these situations negative?  Have there been any times when this psychological trait of “group think” has worked in favor of the side of right?  The most obvious answer to the question comes from a group of Marines and a very under reported incident that occurred in the early days of the Iraq invasion (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Veterans-share-views-on-Iraq-war-2557311.php ). To sum up the incident, a group of Marines on patrol rounded a corner and came face-to face with a funeral procession complete with armed mourners firing into the air. For anyone unfamiliar with the type of procession, imagine encountering for the first time in your life a group of people in which the women are crying out and the men are shooting off automatic weapons in the air all the while “displaying” their grief over the loss of someone.  Now consider that not only have you probably never seen this type of thing before in your life but add on a healthy dose of adrenalin to the mix since you are in a foreign country in a combat situation and you have no idea if the funeral is for someone who died of natural causes or because he was an insurgent or was killed in crossfire and you also have no idea how the procession is going to react to the sudden presence of you and your patrol in their way.  What happened next something that deserves to be honored and retold among all warriors; a corporal called for his fellow Marines to remove their helmets and bow their heads as the procession passed.  The patrol responded to the “leader” of the group and did as instructed ignoring what common sense would dictate as being an incredibly dangerous action.  When the mourners saw this, the procession came to a complete halt and, after a few startled seconds, began to applaud the Marines. 

I guess some actions and values are universal.  

Anyone who has ever been in rural America will tell you that when you encounter a funeral procession driving by (even if it is going in the opposite direction), you pull over to the side of the road as a bare minimum. To be even more proper, you get out of your car and stand there until the procession passes you by.  In the old days, this was just considered the “right thing” to do; just as the young Marine did what he perceived was the right thing in his situation.  Why and how, however, do we figure out just what the hell the “right thing” is?  The answer to that comes down to one simple word;

Respect…   

Such a simple word and often so hard to put into effect.  However, when you truly see the person in front of you as a PERSON and show them that either by word or action, respect usually follows, and is often returned.  If you don’t, do this; if you see the person or people in front of you as just “subjects”, “suspects”, “targets”, etc. you actually end up dehumanizing yourself by dehumanizing them. During my time in law enforcement, I’ve become very familiar with the gallows humor that goes along with the job.  Most in law enforcement usually start out wanting to help others and their community but, after literally being spit on, lied to, and watching those you do try to help refuse your assistance knowing that the path they are on will lead to an early grave, you develop a new “skin” and distance themselves from the public as a defense mechanism. You will also gravitate to “your own kind” i.e. other law enforcement personnel strengthening the “us versus them” mentality believing no one else can understand you or the stressors of the job.  How many of you reading this who are in law enforcement can say that you have someone you consider a close friend and confidant who isn’t “on the job”?  It’s a natural occurrence but just because it’s natural doesn’t make it right. Now before you think I’m going all kumbaya here and about to ask for a group hug let me point out that you can still view whoever you are interviewing, handcuffing, taking orders from, etc as an asshat, jackhole, fucktard, or whatever adjective you care to use and there are times when you need to let someone know that by their actions even the baby Jesus doesn’t love them at the moment.   But if you can still see them as a person with needs, wants, family, etc, it gives you a more even keel and, in my opinion, gives you a better chance of knowing the right thing when decisions present themselves.  Consider it this way; how do you think the public views you after being treated in the same way that most of you think management and Internal Affairs looks at you (i.e. an object before a person and guilty until proven innocent)?  All of this is probably just a long winded way of saying what can be summed up by reading Robert Humphreys “hunting story;” for those not familiar with it, a simple Google search is all you need and I won’t retell the story here because it isn’t mine to tell.  You have to have something outside the job (besides “recreational” drinking) to ground yourself so you can have a broader perspective. For me, its martial arts training with a real dojo that places and teaches a value on human life instead of the local mixed martial arts gym but whatever it is, sports, martial arts, church, etc., a little distance from “the job” actually makes you better at it. When you don’t have something outside the job to ground yourself, the culture of the “blue line” becomes paramount and that’s when bad decisions can be made. An example of this occurred in Chicago in 2007 when an off duty police officer, after being cut off from any more alcohol because he was drunk, came around the bar and physically attacked the female bartender less than half his size, (we’ve all seen the video) and was not arrested for felony assault until after the video of the beating became public.  If you respond to a bar fight and find a 125 lb female bartender beaten by a 250 lb male and your primary reaction appears to be saving the attackers job; you seriously need to reexamine your priorities and career choices! If you responded to this kind of incident and didn’t know that the assailant was a fellow cop, what would your reaction to the situation be? As warriors, we take responsibility for our actions and decisions and one of our decisions was an oath to uphold the law no matter what.  There have been times when, in order to uphold my oath, I’ve literally wanted to go home and scream at the top of my lungs because the law seemed contradictory to justice but there was no other option.   This (the videotaped beating) is the kind of damage to the reputation of law enforcement that will literally take generations to fix.  Whether we like it or not, THIS is the kind of thing that the public sees and remembers when they think about law enforcement. Personally, I believe this is the minority and our successes don’t get celebrated enough or even noticed by the media for the most part but for attitudes to change, it has to begin on a personal, one on one level and if you are only associating with other law enforcement officers, you aren’t able to have the interaction with the “general public” enough to make a difference and you do yourself a diservice .   I know by now that some of you reading this are already starting to form your response to this missive and think I’m totally out of my tree here but before you post your “f” you back to me, I worked as a local law enforcement officer doing undercover work in one of the highest crime cities in the United States before turning to the dark side and joining the federal ranks so I do know just what the stresses of the job entail and the need for force to be applied when necessary.   When you interact with people in the course of your duties and are required to apply force to a person rather than a “subject”, it does make it harder to initiate, but as long as you keep your tactical awareness, I don’t think that that’s a bad thing.  The question ultimately becomes; are you a warrior willing to stand for your oath or are you a soldier just following orders?  If you are a warrior, you stand on your oath and take responsibility for your actions including those that will be unpopular and cause you grief from the “soldiers” who are more interested in the collection and retention of power based on whatever authority they can eek out of their position and office.  

When we began our vocation by taking our oaths, we all chose the path of the warrior for whatever reason and we need to walk that path instead of being soldiers. Every nation has soldiers and history is replete with atrocities committed by following orders by either a commander or an emergent leader such as demonstrated in the three examples I gave at the beginning of this missive. 

Back to the beginning; how do we identify and foster men and women like the Marine corporal? Answer; we don’t; they will arise and identify themselves as needed. The trick is to train ourselves so we know the difference and act as warriors.