The research found that the hidden psychological loss of combat depends on the type of mission.

According to groundbreaking Norwegian research, traditional wisdom in combat psychology challenges Norwegian research and does not necessarily harm the mental health of soldiers. The determinant appears to be the nature of the mission and how well it is consistent with the soldiers’ expectations.

“Killing another person is not something that goes against human nature and does not necessarily harm the mental health of the people who do so,” said Andreas Espetvedt Nordstrand, principal investigator and head of research and development at the Novig Army Military Psychiatry Institute.

Nordstrand’s team examined all Norwegian veterans (4,053) serving in Lebanon (10,605) and Afghanistan (4,053) and compared their post-service mental health in multiple dimensions including PTSD, depression, insomnia, anxiety, anxiety, alcohol consumption, and quality of life.

The results show a sharp contrast. Lebanese veterans killed in battle are more likely to experience mental health problems after they are killed in battle. However, for Afghan veterans, making a living has no measurable impact on subsequent mental health.

“Making a living in combat is a key factor among veterans serving in Lebanon,” Nordstrand explained. “But for Afghan veterans, there is no subsequent impact on their mental health. We do not identify trends for any variables we investigate.”

What are the differences? The context seems to be everything. Lebanon is primarily a peacekeeping mission, while Afghanistan involves more aggressive combat operations. Different expectations and mindsets shape how soldiers handle their actions.

“Participating in peacekeeping operations seems to make soldiers more vulnerable to the killing of another person than soldiers who participate in combat missions,” Nordstrand said. “We believe this supports the view that actions such as actions that are primarily violated by group norms and mission guidelines, thus making the killing harmful.”

These findings contradict long-standing psychological theories, suggesting that killing inherently causes “moral harm”, regardless of the circumstances. Instead, research shows that clear task parameters and appropriate psychological preparation can create psychological resilience.

Professor Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair contributed to the study’s perspectives, highlighting the importance of thinking: “Soldiers adopt a task-based way of thinking that determines their expectations, preparing for the strong aspects of the role.

This study is of great significance to military training and deployment policies. “We believe that the findings show that we must be keenly aware of the mission guidelines set when sending soldiers to armed missions,” Nordstrand noted.

Despite obvious results, publishing proved challenging. “This is a sensitive topic and discovery may be considered taboo,” Nordstrand explained. “In civilized human society, people often dislike the idea that as long as a person’s life occurs in the rules of war, it is completely fine for soldiers.”

As global tensions increase, Nordstrand believes that solving the taboo topic is more important than ever: “Soldiers killing are actually a key part of their work. These findings are a clear call. Take on political and collective responsibilities while sending soldiers on dangerous tasks to ensure that they are not suitable for their own societies, which are not such societies that are the normative scope.