[janeemljr]

There is an inbred revulsion to taking the life of another human being. People who can do it easily and without any impact on their mental condition are IMHO off the norm to begin with.

The enemy has to be depersonalized and stripped of his humanity to make killing him easier.

In past wars it was not kill the other person it was kill the Hun, the Nip, the gook, Charlie and now it is kill the raghead, the mussie and other terms.

Once you have dehumanized the enemy, killing becomes easier. There is also a continuum of justification of killings that goes from heat of battle, to killing an enemy command post remotely, to pre-emptive killings because someone is of a population that may be an enemy, to killing children that may grow up to be the enemy population and a potential enemy. This is the continuum that the excessive genocidal regimes like Pol Pot traveled.

The challenge for a modern military if to define the rules of engagement such that the end of the line in killing the enemy is justified and can withstand scrutiny. Soldiers who cross the line set by the rules of engagement should be punished severely and the defence of heat of battle, serving their country should not be considered. The modern soldier should be sufficiently trained in the ethics and rules of killing the enemy that he will not cross the line into unlawful killing.