[Skybird]

An army is no representative image of society. It is still mostly a male society, and it only attracts - in non-conscript armies - people with an interest in that. And sociological reserach probably reveals that certain social groups are over- (under-) represented. So the argument that the army reflects the ammount of crime to be expected from civil society, necessarily must be distorted a bit. the first is not representative for the latter. But the overall climate and mood may change and influence the spirit inside an army. For example I am very much aware that British soldiers and officers behave and talk in different and mnore relaxed way than many German ones. the tradition in both armies is different.

But all that is not so much decisive, I think.Decisive is that EVERY man, civilian as military as well, will change and will be affected by the presence of violance of that scale over a long time, with his life at risk for so long, with situations he do not see meaning in, and the genral situation of chaos that war necessarily brings. War changes man's mind and attitude, and for the worst it does so. That's no question of guilt or non-guilt, it simple a reality of human nature - man bears so much, and beyond that he brakes, in whatever that symptom will show up: hate, frustration that leads to vandalism or an attiude tnot to care for life anymore. It has always been that way in every war ever fought, and it will always be like that. That's why it is "war", and not a picnic in the park. By the way an army is trained and lead, and the spriit that is held alive in it, the time-factor and the degree to which such barbaric things happen can be influenced: but it cvannot be totally prevented. All you can do is examine what happened, and force the ones guilty to accept legal consequences by military code of law - that's what it is there for.

"Krieg vertiert." War turns men into dogs. If you don't want to see it happen, don't wage war.