tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post3809283073371085552..comments2024-01-23T17:14:04.067-05:00Comments on Jaltcoh: Why didn't the New York Times report on Indian police refusing to shoot the terrorists?John Althouse Cohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-60203864863861219312008-12-06T00:41:00.000-05:002008-12-06T00:41:00.000-05:00It's worth noting that the terrorists had machine ...It's worth noting that the terrorists had machine guns and the police had old fashioned rifles. If memory serves me right, each low level inspector is only allotted two bullets. So them not firing does not surprise me.Agnostic Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718035081147979548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-21913876859841503422008-12-03T13:40:00.000-05:002008-12-03T13:40:00.000-05:00From an article in Harpers:"Despite our entertainm...From an article in Harpers:<BR/><BR/>"Despite our entertainment industry telling us otherwise, it is not easy to kill. In his groundbreaking and highly influential study of World War II firing rates, S.L.A. Marshall, a World War I combatant and chief historian for the European Theater of Operations during World War II, interviewed soldiers fresh from battle and found that only 15 to 20 percent of the combat infantry were willing to fire their weapons, and that was true even when their life or the lives of their comrades were threatened. When Medical Corp psychiatrists studied combat fatigue cases in the European Theater, they found that “fear of killing, rather than fear of being killed, was the most common cause of battle failure in the individual,” Marshall reported. Marshall’s methodology is now in question, but his findings have been replicated in studies of Civil War and World War I battles, even in re-creations of Napoleonic wars. And the effect of his findings on the military has been profound."<BR/><BR/>Training methods have since changed:<BR/><BR/>"By the Korean War, the firing rate had gone up to 55 percent; in the Vietnam war, it was around 90 to 95 percent. How did the military achieve this? As Grossman writes, 'Since World War II, a new era has quietly dawned in modern warfare: an era of psychological warfare—psychological warfare conducted not upon the enemy, but upon one’s own troops. . . . The triad of methods used to achieve this remarkable increase in killing are desensitization, conditioning, and denial defense mechanisms.'<BR/><BR/>"Training techniques became more realistic and varied. Soldiers no longer stood and fired at a nonmoving target. They were fully suited up, down in foxholes, and shooting at moving targets, targets that resembled other humans. Simultaneously, the “enemy,” whether North Korean, North Vietnamese, Russian, or Arab, was purposefully dehumanized. Killing people was described graphically, and with relish. As Dyer notes, most recruits realize the bloodthirsty talk of drill sergeants is hyperbole, but it still serves to desensitize them to the suffering of an 'enemy.'" <BR/><BR/>The Indian police obviously didn't receive the kind of training that would make it easy for them to kill other human beings.Twinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540272057882328393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-90393334212938707452008-12-03T13:36:00.000-05:002008-12-03T13:36:00.000-05:00It's not really surprising at all that the Ind...It's not really surprising at all that the Indian police were unable to shoot the attackers. They were demonstrating perfectly normal and expected human behavior. Or at least expected by those who understand how humans react to combat. I guess it was not expected by the average movie-watcher or video-game player.<BR/><BR/>Look up SLA Marshall: He found that soldiers will only fire their weapons at the enemy 15% of the time. The natural human reluctance to kill another human being is difficult to overcome -- even when your own life is threatened.<BR/><BR/>Also look up LTC David Grossman: he also discusses these matters.<BR/><BR/>The solution is proper training. After the Pentagon discovered only 15% of troops would shoot at the enemy in WW2, training was drastically changed. By Korea, firing rates were increased to 50%. By Vietnam, firing rates were >90%. But this depends on the right kind of training.<BR/><BR/>And police -- Indian or American -- don't get that training. That's why they didn't shoot back. Not because they're cowards, but because they are human and lacked proper training.Twinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540272057882328393noreply@blogger.com