Taking The Shot

In the nightmare, it’s always dark, and quiet.

That’s how I know it’s not real. The reality was likely a mass of flash-bangs, burning trash, explosions, screams, and certainly gunfire. But in the dream, it’s silent except for the sound-effect gunshots and the first-person breathing. I move with my head locked in position, not bobbing or swaying. The helicopter lands in the courtyard. I move through the doorways, up the stairs, checking rooms with precision. And then I see the target.

And this is when I realize, each time, that the man is Bin Laden.

Do I take the shot?

In the weeks following the “killing of Bin Laden,” as everyone from the Wall St. Journal to the Discovery Channel refers to the events in Abbattobad, I’ve been wracked with ambivalence. Not ambivalence in the sense of “I don’t care,” but in the true sense that I hold so many conflicting thoughts and beliefs in my head at the same time that I can’t find the red ”You are here” spot on my moral roadmap.

But the rightness and wrongness of it all is largely a political issue. One that will no doubt fill toothless coffee shop conversations and wine-soaked dinners for years to come in my privileged, white, American middle-class life. What keeps me up at night is a personal angst, not a societal one.

On hearing of Bin Laden’s demise, I thought the following things, in order:

1: Finally. Rot in Hell.
2: What have we become, as a nation, that we’re assassinating people?
3: What does it mean for me, as a Christian, to be celebrating anyone’s death, no matter how evil?

As details emerged, I tried to imagine myself in the role of the shooter. And that’s when I realized—videogames have made me a less moral person, or at the least, a less mindful one.

I have been in that room in Abbattobad, with the gun in my hand, thousands upon thousands of times. To be sure, I have neither the physical or mental capacity to actually be a SEAL, any more than I could be a brain surgeon or a quarterback. But I have put myself in his shoes, time and time again. I have, in fact, simulated nearly the precise encounter in military shooters for almost 20 years.

And if there’s one lesson I’ve taken away from games, it’s that simulation works.

As a fledgling pilot, I spent twenty hours simulating my Cessna 172 for every hour I spent in the real-world cockpit. This didn’t give me the “feel” for flying, but it did allow me to spend the actual cockpit time solely focused on that missing piece. The checklists, procedures, techniques, math, navigation and even to a large extent the instincts that made me a competent pilot all came from the sim.

Back when I used to drive, I played a lot of racing sims. The first time I had the chance to take a car around an actual racetrack at a SSCA parking lot event, my understanding of line, heel-toe-braking, and traction were completely dialed in, allowing me to focus on all the things the sim doesn’t teach you.

Alan Bean, Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 12, once commented that the actual landing on the moon part was almost dull, because they had been through it in the simulator so many times.

Simulation works in the military, too. There is no doubt in my mind that somewhere on the Mid-Atlantic coast, there’s a 3D model of Bin Laden’s compound. There planners, perhaps even the actual operatives, worked their way through architectural renderings of the facility, learning the firing lanes and hiding spots. They likely ran through drills in the real world as well, simulating the moments of an unpredictable encounter as best they could, to eliminate variables.

So it’s easy to put myself in the ersatz shoes of the shooter. I can close my eyes and imagine myself full of adrenaline—and maybe a little fear—as I move into the room. Something I’ve been trained for. Something I’ve been visualizing over and over on the long ride to the compound. Something that is in fact my very reason for being. The door opens, and there’s the target. In that chaos, in that dirty, musty room in my head, any number of things can happen. Does the man Bin Laden do something threatening? Reflexively, I pull the trigger.

But what if he puts his hands up? Or runs? Do I risk trying to tackle the man, cuff him and get him to the copter? I think I still take the shot.

And this bothers me.

It has nothing to do, honestly, with where on the scale of evil the man is. It doesn’t even have to do with whether I have been told to take the man alive or shoot him on sight. I still think I take the shot, because that’s how I, Julian, have simulated these kinds of encounters, over and over and over again. Because I, Julian, a Christian, Husband, Father, Middle-aged and bald epileptic nerd who runs 10 minute miles on a good day, am in fact a trained killer of men.

What I’m not, obviously, is someone trained to do the actual job on that chaotic night. I am not a trained resolver of high-intensity combat situations. Not a trained negotiator. Not trained to do the complex and highly nuanced job of achieving the mission objectives. My only training is to clear the room and pull the trigger.

There are no handcuffs in Counter-Strike.

Individuals have tremendous power to change the world. Bin Laden certainly did. As did the brave young adrenalin-soaked soldier who evaluated a complex, fluid, unfolding situation and fired. We shape the world every day through our actions, through our choices. We shape the world in our reactions to events like Bin Laden’s killing, whether it’s through introspection, prayer or jingoism.

There’s no point in me moralizing and handwringing about the acts of May 2nd, 2011, or about state-sanctioned assassination or American Hegemony or the beneficent death of monsters. Not until I get my own house in order. I imagine that will be my life’s work.


“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone ... .” John 8:9

Comments

Thank you for this piece, rabbit. It's one of the main things I wrestle with when it comes to violent video games: how do I reconcile my essentially pacifist nature with a hobby of simulated violence? We often like to pretend that we are immune to desensitization, or that the games have no effect on us, but psychology tells us differently.

I recall hearing or reading an interview with a military trainer, who remarked that in WWII it was nearly impossible to get a recruit to fire a gun at a human-shaped target, aiming to hit. Most shots fired by green soldiers were misses - and not because of poor rifle skills. But today it's extremely easy to get them to fire at targets, because of the influence of video games.

My final justification is that I allow myself to play games but swear I will never touch a real firearm. Not even to practice shooting. I will not hold others to this standard, but I feel that they should hold themselves to it: that one can either indulge in violent fantasies, or one can wield a tool of violence, but no one should do both.

Nice to see you back on the front page, Julian.

There's one thing that was running through my head while reading this: I thought you stopped playing realistic shooters. The fact is, even though you (may) have stopped, you have played in the past, many a times.

I completely understand your moral quandary, but since the assassination I haven't changed any of my gaming habits. I'll still fire up a mp shooter and go shoot some people. The thing is that I don't think of it that way. I don't take someone down and think "got that sucker!" Instead, I consider it in the context of the game, as part of the team, and in terms of my level and upgrades. Perhaps my abstraction is somewhat worse. I don't know.

You know, I've only been playing Phoenix Wright and Portal 2 since then, but it wasn't an intentional choice.

Well said, Julian.

*dooshy social media anecdote warning*

The day after the conference I read a quote from the pope, "A Christian does not celebrate a death." I posted this as my facebook status, citing him, and added that I agree. The responses were very passionate. Some agreed, but most were statements about how important it was that Bin Laden be killed, and how the world was better off without him. People assumed I was against the killing because I wasn't throwing a party. I have a policy of not commenting on my own statuses to stop me becoming TOO narcissistic, but my personal view is that sometimes, things like this have to happen. It's terribly sad that we live in a world where it is necessary to take a life, but sometimes it is still necessary. Celebrating it as anything but a sad reality demeans us.

I have missed you, Rabbit. I totally agree with you across the board.

Very nice piece. And good to have you back on the Main Page.

A friend of mine found this, and it summed up my thoughts much better than I could:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden/index.html
with disagreement about respecting Capehart and Cole's opinions, as he said, for "opinions for being stated honestly - honesty is not a virtue divorced from context"

This is probably a large part of why I don't like contemporary military shooters. Hell I even baulk at WW2 games. I just don't want to pretend to be that guy. I don't like what that guy's doing and most of the time I don't like why he's doing it. The closer it is to what I'm likely to grab a placard and demonstrate against the more likely it is I'm not going to want to do it for fun.

So is the thought process that Bin Laden might have someday converted to Christianity and become "saved", a chance I might point out he didn't afford his victims?

What a lovely piece, Rabbit. Thanks.

Nathaniel wrote:

I recall hearing or reading an interview with a military trainer, who remarked that in WWII it was nearly impossible to get a recruit to fire a gun at a human-shaped target, aiming to hit. Most shots fired by green soldiers were misses - and not because of poor rifle skills. But today it's extremely easy to get them to fire at targets, because of the influence of video games.

I remember hearing or reading the same thing too... I did a bit of searching, and found this really interesting thread (especially on the second page) on Snopes: http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/48/t/000511/p/1.html

I don't think it's morally wrong to be desensitized to real death. Some of us need that kind of thing just to get up and work every morning.

Flying_Norseman wrote:

So is the thought process that Bin Laden might have someday converted to Christianity and become "saved", a chance I might point out he didn't afford his victims?

Aaaaand this is the first front-page post to be locked and/or sent to Cleveland.

About a week ago, a blogger wrote a piece similar to this. In that post, he compared this to the beginning of The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy inadvertently dropped a house on the Wicked Witch. As I'm sure you're aware, the Munchkins took note of this event and celebrated. There was much joy and rejoicing.

But the question, to him at least, was what were they really celebrating? The death of an individual? Or the loosening of the grip of terror that individual held over them? I, like the Bear, see it in terms of the latter, and the death of UBL in much the same light. I did not personally celebrate, there was no joy in it for me. After all, I'm still 7000 miles from home, still living in a shared 100sqft room, working nearly 60 hours a week, and as of today, I still have nearly 200 days left here. Not much has changed, and for the forseeable future, not much will.

But with that said, I don't think it's wrong to celebrate the event; not in the sense of his death, but in the sense of what his death means in the greater context. While none of the organizations he was associated with or backed directly are likely to go anywhere, it does represent the death of his ideas, his values. In that regard, I have a hard time condemning those who celebrate. I'm sure there are many people who do celebrate the specific act of his death. But I'm sure there are many more, including the brave men and women of the FDNY, NYPD, and those who have lost loved ones in the mountains of Afghanistan searching for him who see this as closure in a sense; the so-called great mastermind of the plot which ultimately stole their loved ones has been brought to justice. Perhaps not in the way many would have liked, but even so.

Lastly, on the matter of 'taking the shot', it really all comes down to training. Tons of time spent with Simunition, tons of time spent on the range, tons of time spent roping out of helicopters, HALO parachuting, etc. More time in a few months than I'll spend in my entire career, focused and honed to knife edged perfection. However, I'm sure that many of them would count themselves Christians and I'm fairly certain that the individuals who were on the mission will sleep uneasy for a time, because as you so rightly point out, the taking of a life is a heavy thing. Ultimately, that part never changes. All the training does, all the simulations do, is help you make the decision long before the decision point; you encounter the target, determine their intent and capability, and make the call as to the course of action required.

Subtext: Ken Levine, make another SWAT game.

And really, that's not me being trying to be flippant (I don't have to try).

My only training is to clear the room and pull the trigger.

There are no handcuffs in Counter-Strike.

As games, especially military shooters, strive more and more for realism and verisimilitude, why is the player's only conflict resolution killing? Why don't they allow us to contain, subdue, or apprehend the enemies? You know, like real soldiers often do, the ones developers trip over themselves to recreate and respect and honour and so on. Why not, in the pursuit of simulating modern warfare, untrain us from the video game binary of shoot or don't shoot? Why do we not have a SWAT 5?

*Slow, non-sarcastic, respectful, John Hughes 80's teen movie clap*

Gravey wrote:

As games, especially military shooters, strive more and more for realism and verisimilitude, why is the player's only conflict resolution killing?

I was talking to a friend the other day about how this plays out in superhero comics. It's always about a decisive action. Prolonged plans that are applied consistently over time are, for some reason, so unheroic as to be often the halmark of supervillans.

Gravey wrote:

Subtext: Ken Levine, make another SWAT game.

And really, that's not me being trying to be flippant (I don't have to try).

My only training is to clear the room and pull the trigger.

There are no handcuffs in Counter-Strike.

As games, especially military shooters, strive more and more for realism and verisimilitude, why is the player's only conflict resolution killing? Why don't they allow us to contain, subdue, or apprehend the enemies? You know, like real soldiers often do, the ones developers trip over themselves to recreate and respect and honour and so on. Why not, in the pursuit of simulating modern warfare, untrain us from the video game binary of shoot or don't shoot? Why do we not have a SWAT 5?

I think the perspective that is lost in this article is: it's their job. It's not a moral question to them, they made their moral choice a looong time ago, before training for being a SEAL even began. This is their job. They take it as cold and callous as you do putting a new motherboard in a computer. While we may ponder whether we would pull the trigger or not, they are reacting to training and the mission at hand. If condition A exisits, then action X is taken. Hesitation is death, and mission failure, and that code was written out of their program a looong time ago.

Also, I'd like to comment on realism and shoot or no shoot. Let's not confuse a soldier with a cop. I have yet to see a "military police action shooter". Military Shooters are set during conflicts. During conflicts, their is no "shoot/no-shoot" check, like a cop is supposed to make. Every check is "shoot".

Flying_Norseman wrote:

So is the thought process that Bin Laden might have someday converted to Christianity and become "saved", a chance I might point out he didn't afford his victims?

I think that's missing the point. While "should he have been killed or captured" is a debate worth having, Julian takes pains several times to say that this is all about how he is too programmed to have even had that internal debate.

What I think is worth noting is that it is essential (?) for good soldiers to be so programmed. The moral decisions are considered at a higher pay grade before the mission. Any hesitation could be deadly; the soldiers have to be trained to instinctively act immediately as ordered. This is something I think about a lot, and which has been tackled in art many times; in order to do "good" in the long term, we sometimes have to create amoral soldiers. Being a Marine or a SEAL must really mess with your head. I have never known a SEAL personally, but I have known Marines and undercover FBI agents and other soldiers, and it does seem to change your personality; to get to the elite levels, I can't even imagine.

wordsmythe wrote:
Gravey wrote:

As games, especially military shooters, strive more and more for realism and verisimilitude, why is the player's only conflict resolution killing?

I was talking to a friend the other day about how this plays out in superhero comics. It's always about a decisive action. Prolonged plans that are applied consistently over time are, for some reason, so unheroic as to be often the halmark of supervillans.

I would say that's because it allows for the other side to continue doing what they're donig while you sit by and watch for a time. A quick decisive action doesn't allow for the gray area of the 'good guy' ignoring a problem for a time.

Hence, Sony is the bad guy for taking down the PSN and not telling us why and that our info may have been stolen right away.

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

Flying_Norseman wrote:

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

Yes, but it is important hand-wringing as we are trying to determine what justice is. I would have liked him to stand trial, personally.

Vengeance and justice are not the same thing.

It's not every day that I go back and re-read Bible sections Rabbit, but the book you pointed out there has everything to do with reading comprehension and very little to do with 'justice'. We'll never know, but I would like to think that the operator in question would like to have those two bullets back. Good job Rabbit.

Shoal07 wrote:

Also, I'd like to comment on realism and shoot or no shoot. Let's not confuse a soldier with a cop. I have yet to see a "military police action shooter". Military Shooters are set during conflicts. During conflicts, their is no "shoot/no-shoot" check, like a cop is supposed to make. Every check is "shoot".

According to Wikipedia, for some rough numbers, 130,000 Americans were taken prisoner in WWII, versus 417,000 killed. I've never had any pop-up target enemy surrender and be taken prisoner in any WWII game I've played. But it obviously happens in real conflicts.

Flying_Norseman wrote:

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

I just try to bring it back to vidja gams.

Flying_Norseman wrote:

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

Did you even read the article? Maybe try again, there's no hand wringing over whether justice was served or not.

Well, I have an extensive firearms selection, and have competed in IDPA pistol matches for years, but I don't play any FPS games, so I guess that lines up. Mostly though, just because I prefer MMOs.

Nathaniel wrote:

Thank you for this piece, rabbit. It's one of the main things I wrestle with when it comes to violent video games: how do I reconcile my essentially pacifist nature with a hobby of simulated violence? We often like to pretend that we are immune to desensitization, or that the games have no effect on us, but psychology tells us differently.

I recall hearing or reading an interview with a military trainer, who remarked that in WWII it was nearly impossible to get a recruit to fire a gun at a human-shaped target, aiming to hit. Most shots fired by green soldiers were misses - and not because of poor rifle skills. But today it's extremely easy to get them to fire at targets, because of the influence of video games.

My final justification is that I allow myself to play games but swear I will never touch a real firearm. Not even to practice shooting. I will not hold others to this standard, but I feel that they should hold themselves to it: that one can either indulge in violent fantasies, or one can wield a tool of violence, but no one should do both.

Yes, yes I did. My comment was directed more at the comment section here and other places. Also, I don't think this article would have been written if there wasn't some sort of "hand-wringing" involved to use my likely poor turn of phrase. The hand-wringing was more about whether he should have been shot and killed rather than if justice was served or not.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Flying_Norseman wrote:

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

Did you even read the article? Maybe try again, there's no hand wringing over whether justice was served or not.

Flying_Norseman wrote:

Yes, yes I did. My comment was directed more at the comment section here and other places. Also, I don't think this article would have been written if there wasn't some sort of "hand-wringing" involved to use my likely poor turn of phrase.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Flying_Norseman wrote:

I am befuddled by all the hand-wringing over this issue. Can't we just be happy justice was served?

Did you even read the article? Maybe try again, there's no hand wringing over whether justice was served or not.

Fair enough, but the introspection* is a jumping off point for a discussion of whether fake violence potentially densensitises us to real violence, and most of the comments have been about this too. I wouldn't get hung up on a few side tracks.

The hand wringing on this site was done weeks ago.

*better word than hand wringing?

~edit to actually address the article~

It's an interesting piece, and something I've thought about myself. I do think that having played shooters and shot a lot of dudes in the face I would find it easier to actually use violence on someone.

Not easy by any means, but I think my resistance would be lower than if I didn't play games.

Nice food for thought, well presented.

I think the hyper-violent games certainly don't help matters, but I see a general lack of parents bringing up their kids to respect God and their fellow man, and treat life as sacred, in the way of general morals and values as a bigger problem with society today in terms of violence and desensitizing people.

To me, a game is a game. But knowing not to bring harm to my fellow man is a value. Personal values transcend any game.