It’s not surprising that you don’t find these terms outside of his book or references to it. He said himself that they made up these terms. Also, don’t take offense to his description of the Munich incident. Remember, that he’s writing about events that took place only 5-10 years after the Munich Olympics. Their understanding of what happened there did not have the luxury of 50 years worth of analysis, and research. Plus, no internet. What he mentioned in the book was no doubt the extent of their understanding back in the late 70s.
Sure, he wrote his book much more recently, and he definitely should have added a foot note or something. Who knows, though. He probably still believed that’s what happened when he wrote this in 200(2?). After repeated it for 30 years, it was probably just ingrained as fact by that point.
I think that, among all the snipers and marksmen in Vietnam, there has been at least one incident where someone purposely shot a civilian either blatantly or using flimsy justification, all because they knew they wouldn’t get in trouble and because it made them feel euphoric and powerful inside. Or maybe they were just pissed off, and they were taking out their frustrations. But there were no enemy to shoot, so they shot what was available.
I’m saying that I think that has likely happened at least once. Not a rampage or a shooting spree, mind you. But one, maybe two extra civilians to keep the shooting going or, if no enemy are found, to get to shoot and kill someone; anyone. I think these types of incidents, while not necessarily common, were not unlikely to have occurred. I also don’t expect to find documented proof of any specific instances. These scenarios would not be easily discovered and documented. Not getting caught is part of the encouragement and motivation. They’re only going to be known from people telling stories or having private conversations with each other.
There’s never been a police incident where anything like this has occurred, though. No. Of course not. I think that not only would this be very specific to war and combat, it’s particularly specific to Vietnam.
The Munich syndrome, I don’t think has actually ever happened anywhere, ever. I think the whole concept is based on snipers who felt a small connection and empathy after observing a target for days and days at a time. This is especially true if the sniper is observing a village, and the target’s family is coming and going, and he’s interacting with children, etc. I think some of them had a small, passing feeling of compassion, and it confused and scared them. So, maybe they’d dwell on it a lot later. Thinking they must be some kind of sissy or something. Maybe it resulted in some serious mental issues later on. Who knows. I don’t think this has ever actually resulted in a failed mission, ever, though.
So, I think the emotional response is real. I think it’s possible for these types of feelings to manifest in certain situations. But I don’t think it’s ever been detrimental to a mission. It’s possible that someone is suffering some serious PTSD because of it, though.
Yeah I misremembered the term Haney used; it was “Texas Tower Syndrome.” But either way, yes, couldn’t find any instance of a police or military sniper ever having gone rogue due to the craze-high of the moment. Not that isolated incidents that Bear Nenno speaks of couldn’t have happened, but they wouldn’t have been likely to be reported.
Having never read the book I have heard of the idea of police snipers in the heat of the moment just popping off shots at anyone they see, didn’t that basically happen at Ruby Ridge when the police sniper shot an unarmed woman?
No. She was shot standing behind a door, not because she was specifically targeted. The shot passed through the door and killed her. While I’m sure target recognition could be a problem and pose some risk of misidentification in a rapidly developing scenario, particularly when poor ROE is in place as at a Ruby Ridge, that’s still a long way off from a sniper “popping off shots at anyone they see.”
This actually sounds like the plot of the James Bond short story The Living Daylights, in which Bond (who is, after all, described by Fleming as an executioner – “License to Kill” and all that) is sent to Berlin specifically to kill whoever prevents a defector from coming across the Wall, but can’t bring himself to kill the East German “musician” who has smuggled her rifle in with her cello case (A lot of this eventually made it into the movie of the same name, somewhat altered, though). So he shifts his aim at the last moment, shooting the rifle out of her grip and scaring “the living daylights” out of her. Bond’s accomplice noticed what he did and says he’ll have to report him.
If Haney were more of a Bond fan he might have called this “Living Daylight” syndrome. Clearly, it was a recognized possibility long before Munich.
One can see how for a true professional sniper as we know them today – a precision surgical tool – a propensity to NOT go berserk is one of the primary qualifications. But part of that ties in with the other part of the mission which IS to patiently and cooly observe the target and learn about and become familiar with their movements and their vulnerabilities.
But the naming of “syndromes” seems to have been just a facile way of labeling for the sake of using some referent that would be relatively familiar to the book-buying public.
Indeed – which BTW brought to my mind, when reading this…
… the scene in Full Metal Jacket where Gunny Hartmann talks up the excellence of Marine marksmanship training by bringing up Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Spitballing here, but one modern military job where this effect might have to be taken into account is that of the big UAV operators. Things like Reaper and Predator. AIUI, those guys do watch targets for days at a time or longer. Watch them interact with their families, other villagers, other antigovernment militia, the occasional farm animal…
Then sometimes get the order to put a SDB or Hellfire through that dwelling. I’m sure the people supervising these personnel are aware of the effect, if it exists, and conditioning to make it less of an issue.
The second one is reminds me of the Nietzsche quote “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”
Not really. UAV’s are unique in that there are teams of people involved, and the final order (approval) to fire is given by a high ranking officer. Unlike snipers, armed UAVs are not a company/battalion asset. So the approval to fire and the oversight of engagements is much higher and far greater than for a sniper.
But, back to the teams involved. The thing about a UAV, is the people doing the watching, the flying, and the shooting, are all different groups of people. There’ll be one group in charge of flying, and that’s all they do is just fly where they are told. There will be another group, like you mention, watching particular targets for days and days and days or longer. Several groups doing that, in fact. Then, when the time comes to actually shoot, another team jumps in to do that. And finally, there is the group that was in charge of the whole thing, telling the first group where to fly, the second what to look at, and the third when to shoot. The wildest thing is that all of these groups are often on opposite sides of the planet. The pilots in one state, the analysts in another; the shooters somewhere else, and finally the targeting technicians and engagement authority in yet another location, usually closer to the actual strike. But we’re talking hemispheres here. So closer might not be saying much.
The reasoning for this doesn’t really have anything to do with the issues in this thread, however. It has more to do with a long list of varied and complicated reasons, not the least important of which is the fact that the people doing the watching are often civilians, and it isn’t legal to have civilians engaging in combat like that.
Anyway, I could ramble for days on this. But, suffice it to say, UAVs aren’t going to have this problem.
That isn’t true, though. In the interest of not hijacking the thread, I’ll just say that Grossman completely made that up. It was a poor application of statistics, bad science, and bad assumptions.