Reply #72: The difference is that there is more leeway

[Alcibiades]

Soldiers know that there isn't going to be a criminal investigation every time they shoot a civilian, but that they certainly will have some 'splaining to do if it is alleged they are smoking hashish. Inherent in the job of the soldier is killing people. Kills are presumed righteous, and it's easy to plant an AK. In a conflict where the enemy is in among the people, these sorts of things are even more likely. Claims that civilians have been killed are probably less likely to be followed up upon in today's military than the charge that they are smoking hashish.

My dad did two long tours and three short tours in Vietnam. He took trophies, much like these men, but he's not a sociopath--more than a little narcissistic, but not a sociopath. I doubt very much that all these men are sociopaths, either. I doubt that all the folks who acted in the My Lai massacre were sociopaths either. People's actions are determined by context, and the context of combat, particularly a counter-insurgency, enables people to justify them doing things they would not normally do. The military is set up to kill people, and if a few people wind up dead, it's usually just considered collateral damage, which makes it that much easier for these sorts of things to happen. Look at the Milgram experiments: if you authorize people to use force, you change them. They are not sociopaths, but acting as part of a context that has made it acceptable. And then, if you tell people waterboarding isn't torture, don't be surprised if they come home and waterboard their children. The point is that they are features of every war, and we ought to think about this when it comes down to questions such as "should we really spend another decade in Afghanistan?"