Over the last few weeks, there's been a lot of commentary attributed to the incident of Sgt. John M. Russell, the soldier charged with killing five fellow service members at a mental health treatment facility in Baghdad. The natural question is: Why did he do it? And there has been no shortage of answers offered up on his behalf. For the moment, we have only conjecture, but the most logical assumption is that the man had troubles. That much is known. The real question, of course, is why did he have troubles? This is where the discussion has generally fallen, but also fallen short.

    Many people, in their general disgust for the occupation in Iraq, have accused US war policy for Russell's behavior. The logic goes that immoral wars will always produce immoral behavior by its participants. I'll buy that. But it doesn't prove, necessarily, that that's what was going on for Russell. Not knowing him personally, all we can really say is that it is one of the possibilities. I think that's important to keep in mind.

    One problem with defining a war based strictly on the conduct of individuals is that there will always be the conduct of other individuals which will allow somebody else to define it in another way. Extrapolating in this manner will only yield the correct analysis by chance and very likely elicit, in most audiences, a creeping skepticism. That is too bad because there is certainly something to be learned from extreme behavior and extreme psychological states both on and off the battlefield.

    Having participated in the Iraq war myself and having been an active duty Marine infantryman for twelve years, I do recognize the excesses that wars produce. I'm scarcely alone in that. And in observing those excesses, I also tend to suspect Russell's rampage as related to his participation in the war. But that assessment seems too narrowly framed and precludes the widest view of the problem. In this respect, the John Russell case is not by itself useful, especially to those of us who don't know him. But an examination of extremes could very well be useful, of which Russell would be an unquestionable example.

    What drives soldiers to murder, atrocities and suicide? What is it about Iraq that has settled so uncomfortably beneath so many soldiers' skins? For me, there was a lot. But I never acted extremely. So I think there must be more to these violent anomalies than just aversion. What we, as soldiers, packed to the battlefield surely influenced they way we saw it. So it seems that no deep inquiry can be made into this incident without wondering what society has contributed to its own excesses.

    Every consciousness is certainly unique based on infinite circumstances and starting points; it may be impossible to discern any definitive trends. Yet the structures we share cannot be passed by without a glance. One may find it difficult to specifically articulate the pernicious effects of particular societal arrangements on the psyche; but in the American arrangement, it's hard not to notice the connubial bond between competition and the extreme, even violent means, by which one prevails. In a culture where survival is swaddled in aggression and victory, a desperate fear of "losing" seems quite natural. The ubiquitous and dogged urging to win creates an awkward view of our fellow man. Empathy lies in perpetual opposition to success. In the land of e pluribus unum, this is at best a poor civic model; at worst it is a recipe for pandemic lunacy. Really, win or lose, how does one not go crazy?

    Atrocities and aberrant violence on the battlefield are absolutely products of war - so much so it seems redundant to state. But individual incidents like that of John Russell are not the true aberrations; nor are the wars that produce them. The disharmony we sense all around us, and which eats more savagely at the minds of some than others, is rooted in America's fundamental preference for conquest over cooperation. In such a climate, there will always be wars; and, within those wars, there will be rampant and extreme episodes of violence. That is what the John Russell incident is evidence of.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.