Psychology in War:

Applying Psychoanalytic Theory to Increase Ethical Literacy in Armed Conflict

By Richard Mathewson

© 2026

The Kincade Society

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABSTRACT

People who experience internal psychic conflict tend to project this onto the external world around them.  When this happens, the outside world mirrors the inside conflict.  The personality develops ways of processing reality through psychological defense mechanisms that often distort it.  In the context of war, such distortions can prevent resolution and exacerbate conflict.  Understanding these psychological defenses helps one understand the human being behind the “enemy.”  This gives the warfighter enhanced perspective, allowing them to engage the enemy in a more ethical way.  Although conflict is a part of the human condition, it is possible that ethical conduct during times of war can help ameliorate the overall negative perception of the United States and improve its global standing.  Ethical warfare is not a novel concept.  Entire bodies of law and treaties (International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, UN Charter, Geneva Conventions of 1949, Hague Conventions) have been devised to address this.  This paper applies evidence-based theory from a psychoanalytic framing to help increase the ethical literacy of the American warfighter thereby aligning U.S. military competency with international standards.

INTRODUCTION

The enemies of America do not hold a favorable view of her.  Dislike does not sufficiently describe the animosity many hostile nations and people have for the United States.  But this should come as no surprise.  Any member of a group (here, the world community) that attempts to set itself apart as a leader in that group must not be shocked by the hostility shown by those who envy its status or hold its aspirations for greatness in contempt.  Such response is to be expected.  

America has been a leader of the free world for a long time.  During its time in this role, it has had moments of strength and of weakness.  Such is the reality of leadership.  To lead, one must be humble and patient, treating others—superior and inferior—with respect and understanding.  To do otherwise is domination, not leadership.  If America wishes to lead, it must lead by example and actively resist domination.  Exemplary leadership creates a model to emulate; domination makes enemies of those being led.  

This does not mean America should take a passive role in global activities.  Passivity is not a good leadership quality—it signals weakness to the strong who have ill intent.  And in a world where bad people want to do bad things to good people, whether because of beliefs, personality, unresolved trauma, or general lack of self-control, being passive only encourages and enables bad.  Thus, although America should not become a passive bystander, quietly watching the world unfold, it should also not become the monster it fights.  America can be respectful while holding others accountable, but it must itself be accountable to its better angels.        

America is unique in its foundation built upon the Constitution and ethical principles.  What makes this meaningful is not the pretense of virtue and justice in times of peace, but actual alignment with these principles during times of war.  A diamond does not take form without intense heat and pressure.  So too the true beauty of America cannot be fully appreciated in times of comfort and ease alone.  Conflict is the soil in which the seed of a better way of life planted long ago can sprout into a beautiful flower of promise and hope.  It is also the soil in which that seed can shrivel and die.  Which one it becomes depends on how well the seed is nurtured.   

The importance of staying principled even in war was emphasized by Justice O’Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a Supreme Court case that examined the treatment of a citizen “enemy combatant” in war and determined the due process to which that individual was entitled:

Striking the proper constitutional balance here is of great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing combat.  But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship.  It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad…¹   

The takeaway from this is less about the fundamental value that due process represents in the American constitutional system and more about importance of adhering to the constitutional principles that make America what it is, especially in times of conflict and chaos.  Even, nay, especially in war, America must stay true to the ethical principles upon which this great Constitutional Republic was founded.  If it does not, if it fails to follow its own moral precepts, then it has lost its way.     

Armed conflict provides a unique opportunity for America to lead by example because it shows the world how we as a nation can walk in the light even in our darkest hour.  We can fight the monsters without ourselves becoming those monsters.  That is powerful, and such power holds persuasive appeal often even with the most hostile of enemies.

This paper takes from psychological research and evidence-based data to help improve ethical literacy in the United States military.  Mitigating unethical conduct in the military using tested theories from the psychoanalytic context may improve the overall effectiveness of this fighting force, thereby reducing casualties and collateral damage.  This approach would also act as a mitigation mechanism in situations involving Law of War (also, Law of Armed Conflict) matters that may arise by providing evidence of training in ethical competence.  Although the author possesses no expectation of turning the average soldier into a philosopher, it is possible to raise the overall ethical literacy of the U.S. military as a group of warfighters.  Just as other more mundane kinds of training are implemented with regularity in military settings, ethical conduct in conflict can be integrated into current training regimes and schedules.  In an age of accountability and moral evolution, such improvement is less a fantasy and more about responsibility. 

The application of psychological theories in a military context is not a novel concept.  Much military training is already informed by psychological science.  Although there is no expectation that integrating these theories into military training programs will produce magical effects or “super warriors,” improvement is possible.  The suggested use of psychoanalytic theories is not intended to, nor does it, infer or imply that the military per se is pathological or dangerous, thereby necessitating such an approach.  Rather, the integration of these theories and this science is intended to increase the understanding of the average warfighter and, hypothetically, enhance their ethical literacy.  By making someone consciously aware of a thing, that person is more likely to act in accordance with that awareness.  Adding ethical literacy to routine military training can produce meaningful changes even if it takes time for this to happen.

Warfighters are not expected to develop clinical knowledge of the psychological aspects of armed conflict.  Such a burden would be distracting and inhibit effective execution of their mission.  But they can learn, as part of their ongoing training, enough about the psychology of the enemy to enhance their perspective and increase their ethical literacy as they carry out their mission.  This expectation of the warfighter to understand enough about the basics to suffice was noted in the Commentary of 1952 for the drafting of the Preamble to Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949:

However carefully the texts were drawn up, and however clearly they were worded, it would not have been possible to expect every soldier and every civilian to know the details of the odd four hundred Articles of the Conventions, and to be able to understand and apply them. Such knowledge as that can be expected only of jurists and military and civilian authorities with special qualifications. But anyone of good faith is capable of applying with approximate accuracy what he is called upon to apply under one or other of the Conventions, provided he is acquainted with the basic principle involved.²

The goal of this paper is practical, not fanciful: basic understanding of the psychology of the enemy which increases ethical literacy of the warfighter.  Improving the human condition has never happened overnight or instantly; it always happens over a long span of evolution.  And this requires educating humans in new ways of thinking and understanding the world around them (a slow process to be sure, but one worthy of the effort).  Teaching warfighters to see the person behind the label of “enemy” may not prevent war, but it may improve the warrior fighting in it.  This is especially relevant to U.S. forces, whose status as an American invokes a higher expectation of moral integrity, especially in armed conflict.   

THE PERSON BEHIND THE LABEL

In armed conflict, it is difficult to see the humanity in the enemy.  By seeing the enemy as “other” and not an extension of the human family, it becomes easier to mistreat that other.  The framing of the enemy as less than motivates the warfighter to treat the enemy as less deserving of dignity and respect.  But with all enemy, lawful and unlawful, “their human dignity…is to be honored [and] they as well enjoy and are entitled to protection, even if most minimal, by customary international law.”³  To be clear, there are some personalities (e.g., psychopathic, narcissistic, sadistic) that are arguably undeserving of respect.  However, the objective of increasing ethical literacy is to improve the warfighter, not acquit the guilty of their wrongdoing or change their personality.  This increased awareness is intended to reduce the occurrence of unethical treatment of the enemy (conduct that is already prohibited by international, federal, and military law), not to turn warfighters into battlefield therapists.

Possessing a greater understanding of human psychology doesn’t weaken the warrior, it gives them more control—over themselves and the enemy.  This wisdom is reflected in Art of War, written millennia ago:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.⁴   

Thus, an enlarged perspective makes for a more effective fighting force.  Developing ethical literacy and understanding the enemy increases the likelihood of effective mission execution with successful outcomes.  Importantly, it decreases the likelihood of mistreatment of the enemy.  With this in mind, the reader can now get acquainted with the basic principles of psychological defense mechanisms.     

WHAT IS A PERSONALITY?

To understand what a psychological defense mechanism is, it is first necessary to understand what a personality is.  Every person is a personality.  The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM) defines personality as “what one is rather than what one has.”⁵  Personality is described as:

…relatively stable ways of thinking, feeling, behaving, and relating to others.  In this context, “thinking” encompasses not only one’s belief systems and ways of making sense of self and others, but also one’s moral values and ideals.  Each of us has a set of individual assumptions by which we try to understand our experience, a set of values and characteristic ways of pursuing what we see as valuable, a personal repertoire of familiar emotions and typical ways of handling them, and some characteristics patterns of behaving, especially in our personal relationships.  Some of these processes are conscious and some are unconscious and automatic (or, in the parlance of cognitive neuroscience, implicit).⁶     

In short, personality is “the configuration of characteristics and behavior that comprises an individual’s unique adjustment to life.”⁷  Part of what contributes to shaping a personality includes “identification with significant individuals and groups [and] culturally conditioned values and roles.”⁸  Thus, personality development is influenced by the norms and beliefs of a culture.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th Edition (DSM-5) recognized the importance of cultural influence in the assessment context:

Mental disorders are defined in relation to cultural, social, and familial norms and values.  Culture provides interpretive frameworks that shape the experience and expression of the symptoms, signs, and behaviors that are criteria for diagnosis.  Culture is transmitted, revised, and recreated within the family and other social systems and institutions.  Diagnostic assessment must therefore consider whether an individual’s experiences, symptoms, and behaviors differ from sociocultural norms and lead to difficulties in adaptation in the cultures of origin and in specific social or familial contexts…The boundaries between normality and pathology vary across cultures for specific types of behaviors…⁹

The PDM emphasized the influence of culture in its description of personality patterns and disorders:

People differ in the ways they adapt to circumstance and defend against threat, and they differ in their abilities to integrate these special efforts seamlessly into the conduct of everyday behavior so that the special efforts do not show as such. Depending on their cultural surround and a myriad of other factors, some patterns will be more adaptive than others.¹⁰

From a psychological framing, understanding the enemy requires understanding the culture in which it is embedded or from which it originated.  Because culture influences personality and personality influences behavior, cultural competency can inform programs to increase ethical literacy.  Just as “awareness of the significance of culture may correct mistaken interpretations of psychopathology…,”¹¹ awareness of cultural influence can enhance ethical competency.   

WHAT ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE MECHANISMS?

Where personality is the “complex, dynamic integration or totality, shaped by many forces,”¹² psychological defense mechanisms are one example of those forces.  The APA Dictionary of Psychology defines a defense mechanism as “an unconscious reaction pattern employed by the ego to protect itself from the anxiety that arises from psychic conflict.”¹³  In an adaptive sense, a defense mechanism is how someone processes reality.  In a pathological context, people use defense mechanisms to “defend” against perceived threats in a maladaptive way.  Whether adaptive or pathological, defenses help a person cope with the world around them and the individual using them is often unaware of their influence on behavior. 

Nancy McWilliams, professor at Rutgers University and expert in psychoanalytic and personality psychology, explained reasons for defense mechanisms in the following way:

The person using a defense is generally trying unconsciously to accomplish one or both of the following: (1) the avoidance or management of some powerful, threatening feeling, usually anxiety but sometimes overwhelming grief, shame, envy, and other disorganizing emotional experiences; and (2) the maintenance of self-esteem.¹⁴ 

Thus, psychological defenses are functional (although not necessarily adaptive) in that they help maintain psychological equilibrium.  Whether serving a protective or compensatory purpose, defenses are critical to personality development.  Defenses are classified as primitive, lower-order, or primary defenses and higher-order or secondary defenses:   

Substantial agreement exists among psychoanalytic scholars that some defenses are less developmentally mature than others (Cramer, 1991; Laughlin, 1970; Vaillant et al., 1986)…In general, defenses that are referred to as “primary” or “immature” or “primitive” or “lower order” involve the boundary between the self and the outer world. Those conceived as “secondary” or “more mature” or “advanced” or “higher order” deal with internal boundaries…¹⁵

Primary (primitive or less mature) defenses include withdrawal, denial, omnipotent control, primitive idealization and devaluation, projection, introjection, projective identification, splitting, somatization, acting out (enactment), sexualization, dissociation.  Secondary (more mature) defenses include repression, regression, isolation of affect, intellectualization, rationalization, moralization, compartmentalization, undoing, turning against the self, displacement, reaction formation, reversal, identification, sublimation, and humor.  In particular, projection, splitting, and moralization will be examined for the purpose of enhancing ethical literacy in warfighters.  Such an examination, although not comprehensive, is consistent with the reasoning in the Commentary of 1952 for the drafting of the Preamble to Geneva Convention I that,

anyone of good faith is capable of applying with approximate accuracy what [they are] called upon to apply under [ethical competence standards], provided [they are] acquainted with the basic principle involved.¹⁶

With the enemy, projection, splitting, and moralization contribute more than other defenses to maintaining the image of American warfighters as “evil” and in need of extermination, so understanding them is critical.  Because these defenses motivate enemy hostility more than others, learning about them is consistent with the wisdom from the Art of War that,   

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.¹⁷ 

PROJECTION

The APA Dictionary of Psychology describes projection as:

The process by which one attributes one’s own individual positive or negative characteristics, affects, and impulses to another person or group.  This is often a defense mechanism in which unpleasant or unacceptable impulses, stressors, ideas, affects, or responsibilities are attributed to others.¹⁸   

Although projection presents in both positive and negative forms, the enemy in armed conflict will almost always project onto the American warfighter negative characteristics (e.g., America is Satan, Americans are the terrorists, Americans are the murderers, Americans are rapists, etc.).  Thus, only negative projections will be examined here.  In the situations where the U.S. forces did, in fact, engage in mistreatment of the enemy (e.g., Abu Ghraib prison), such accusations may not be baseless.  However, in the cases where the projection is the enemy’s disowned negative content, these accusations are false and should be recognized as such to reduce the likelihood of emotional reactivity from the warfighter (which can produce impulsive behavior leading to mistreatment of the enemy). 

The negative effects of projection described by McWilliams reflect why this defense makes conflict resolution challenging—both on an interpersonal and international level: 

Projection is the process whereby what is inside is misunderstood as coming from outside…In its malignant forms, projection breeds dangerous misunderstanding and untold interpersonal damage.  When the projected attitudes seriously distort the object on whom they are projected, or when what is projected consists of disowned and highly negative parts of the self, all kinds of difficulties can ensue.  Others resent being misperceived and may retaliate when treated, for example, as judgmental, envious, or persecutory (attitudes that are among the most common of those that tend to be ignored in the self and ascribed to others).  A person who uses projection as his or her main way of understanding the world and coping with life, and who denies or disavows what is being projected, can be said to have a paranoid character.¹⁹  

In relation to developing ethical competency and maintaining an ethical attitude in active armed conflict, being able to identify projection from the enemy is useful.  Unidentified projection can produce confusion, defensiveness, and frustration in the warfighter, making them more likely to engage in mistreatment of enemy combatants (if the warfighter fails to see it as a projection but instead as an accusation, this could motivate the warfighter to “save face” or “defend their honor” through retaliation).  Worse, if the projected content involves guilt, and the warfighter internalizes this whether consciously or unconsciously (e.g., projective identification), it could diminish their morale, endangering organizational cohesion and decreasing mission readiness.     

Learning how to identify projection from the enemy is based on psychoanalytic theory but it is not psychodiagnostic in purpose.  The goal is not to analyze psychopathology per se, but instead to equip the warfighter with enough knowledge to develop self-control when encountering projection from the enemy.  If they see the enemy’s accusations as projections, it’s easier to ignore them versus personalizing them.  This is especially relevant in field interviews and interrogations where obtaining information is critical and interference from projections would be detrimental to this.  It would also be helpful in public affairs work where maintaining good community relations is critical to mission success.  Identifying a projection could reduce the likelihood of becoming offended (which, in many cultures, is enough to destroy a working relationship).  The American military is a highly disciplined organization, yet warfighters are still human with human weaknesses. 

Another benefit of being able to identify projections relates to intelligence gathering.  If the source of information is clearly projecting, that information could potentially be unreliable.  The projection does not per se compromise the information, but it necessitates greater screening for validation (something which could be impracticable given the time constraints and resource requirements for this while in active conflict zones).  Typically, follow-up questions about what is reported can cut through and clean up projections.  However, because “a person who uses projection as his or her main way of understanding the world and coping with life, and who denies or disavows what is being projected, can be said to have a paranoid character,”²⁰ any questioning of projected content should be done with sensitivity and not in a condescending or pathologizing way.  Responding with this attitude will merely confirm any suspicion the paranoid individual may have, effectively ending information sharing.                 

McWilliams offers the following piece of advice for working with someone who is paranoid:

One should usually avoid direct confrontation of the content of a paranoid idea. Paranoid people are acutely perceptive about emotion and attitude; where they get mixed up is on the level of interpretation of the meaning of these manifestations (Josephs & Josephs, 1986; Meissner, 1978; D. Shapiro, 1965; Sullivan, 1953).  When one challenges their interpretations, they tend to believe that one is telling them they are crazy for having seen what they saw, rather than suggesting that they have misconstrued its implications.  Hence, although it is tempting to offer alternative interpretations, if one does this too readily, the patient feels dismissed, disparaged, and robbed of the astute perceptions that stimulated the paranoid interpretation.²¹

Projection from the enemy can happen on a micro level (individual) or a macro level (entire military or national collective).  Being able to identify it can inform operational strategies and tactical planning from small missions to large military maneuvers.  Because “recognizing mental structure is necessarily tied to communication and interaction,”²² identifying content from the enemy as projection and not credible information can bring clarity to communication and integrity to interaction (As a warfighter, if I know the enemy is projecting, I am less likely to (1) internalize the content, (2) get upset and act out against the enemy [unlawful mistreatment], or (3) believe what the enemy is sharing at face value).  Any disclosure from the enemy should be taken with a grain of salt at the front end until otherwise validated as credible.  In short, recognizing projection can reduce the likelihood of acting out impulsively against the enemy and help determine the reliability of information.    

SPLITTING

Splitting is described by the APA Dictionary of Psychology as a form of projection—“the most primitive of all defense mechanisms,”

in which objects that evoke ambivalence and therefore anxiety are dealt with by compartmentalizing positive and negative emotions…leading to images of the self and others that are not integrated.  In general, it results in polarized viewpoints that are projected onto different people.  This mechanism is found not only in infants and young children, who are as yet incapable of combining these polarized viewpoints, but also in adults with dysfunctional patterns of dealing with ambivalence…²³

In her book, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis, McWilliams described splitting as originating in infancy when the child is yet unable to appreciate the nuance of life (inability to process the “shades of gray” so everything is perceived through a much simpler black and white filter):

Splitting of the ego, usually referred to simply as “splitting,” is the other interpersonally powerful process that is understood as deriving from a preverbal time, before the infant can appreciate that his or her caregivers have good and bad qualities and are associated with good and bad experiences.  We can observe in 2-year-olds a need to organize their perceptions by assigning good and bad valences to everything in their world.  That tendency, along with a sense of the difference between big and little (adult and child, respectively), is one of the primary ways in which young human beings organize experience.  Before one has object constancy, one cannot have ambivalence, since ambivalence implies opposite feelings toward a constant object.  Instead, one can be in either a good or a bad ego state toward an object in one’s world.²⁴

Hence the “the most primitive of all defense mechanisms”²⁵ tag given it by the APA Dictionary of Psychology.  But splitting in infancy is a natural part of psychological development.  It’s when the adult fails to outgrow this infantile way of processing the world that problems ensue.

In everyday adult life, splitting remains a powerful and appealing way to make sense of complex experiences, especially when they are confusing or threatening. Political scientists can attest to how attractive it is for any unhappy group to develop a sense of a clearly evil enemy, against which the good insiders must struggle.  Manichean visions of good versus evil, God versus the devil, cowboys versus Indians, the free world against the terrorists, the lone whistle-blower against the hateful bureaucracy, and so on, have pervaded the mythology of contemporary Western culture.  Comparably split images can be found in the folklore and organizing beliefs of any society.²⁶

Clinically speaking, splitting as a psychological defense mechanism is often observed in individuals with poorly integrated or disintegrated psychic structures whose mental functioning is low or decompensating.²⁷  Enemies who view America through distinct, mutually exclusive extremes (e.g., “America is evil, but I am holy”) are likely using this defense mechanism.  It is easier to claim superiority when you can associate the “other” with negative attributes, even if this is the product of distortion.  The downside of splitting in the context of armed conflict is that this defense emboldens the enemy to act out hostility and violently against American forces that are viewed as worthy only of death and destruction (because the enemy fails to see the humanity in warfighters).  With this defense, conflict resolution (a condition precedent to peace) is less likely than not to happen until America is no longer viewed as all bad or totally evil.  This is because the enemy does not see individuals fighting for America, they see America in the warfighters and this psychological fusion prevents distinguishing the soldier from the country.  For the enemy who has not developed a more integrated, healthy psychic structure, America, no matter how much good it does, will remain an evil that must be eradicated at any cost. 

In this case, psychopathological influence on behavior translates into real world armed conflict.  The collective chant “Death to America!” observed in some hostile countries reflects the danger when an enemy engages in splitting (they lose perspective and are unable to see the good and bad qualities in others and come to believe annihilation of the whole person is the only option).  

In addition to this, there is a particularly pernicious aspect to this defense—it is associated with authoritarianism.                 

The mechanism of splitting can be very effective in its defensive functions of reducing anxiety and maintaining self-esteem.  Of course, splitting always involves distortion, and therein lies its danger.  Scholarly studies of the “authoritarian personality” (Adorno, Frenkl-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) in the post–World War II era explored the far-reaching social consequences of the use of splitting (not by that name) to make sense of the world and one’s place in it.  The authors of the original study on authoritarianism believed that certain right-wing beliefs were particularly likely to be associated with this kind of inflexibility, but later commentators established that leftwing and liberal forms of authoritarianism also exist (see Brown, 1965).²⁸   

Splitting helps explain not only authoritarian regimes, but also the religious and ideological beliefs that define these regimes.  Whether in theistic religious movements or atheistic communist governments, dividing the world into good or bad instead of tolerating the ambivalence invoked by the complexities of reality leads to conflict.  Grouping people into “all good” and “all bad” categories decreases appreciation for differences and increases likelihood of conflict from intolerance.  External conflict, in this case, is the direct effect of internal conflict, reflecting the ancient Hermetic Principle of Correspondence: “As above, so below; as within, so without.”  Psychiatrist Carl Jung explained this Hermetic axiom using psychological framing:

The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate.  That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.²⁹

In the context of armed conflict, an enemy that splits the world into extremes without understanding that others are neither all bad nor all good but possess a mixture of both is an enemy that cannot be reasoned with on any rational level (a condition precedent to conflict resolution).  That said, for the American warfighter to remain ethical, especially in times of war, they must ensure that they are not doing to the enemy what the enemy is doing to them.  It does no justice to start throwing stones at the enemy when the one throwing is guilty of the same thing.  Such contradiction merely exacerbates an already volatile situation.  Moreover, because splitting as a psychological defense mechanism infers emotional and mental immaturity, and it follows, moral bankruptcy, viewing the enemy in the same way it views the warfighter would reflect ethical poverty and not ethical literacy (the whole point of learning this knowledge).  

In a case involving preventative strikes against terrorists, the Supreme Court of Israel said the following regarding the need for rules and laws in war:

The State determined that preventative strikes upon terrorists in the area which cause their deaths are a necessary means from the military standpoint.  These strikes at times cause harm and even death to innocent civilians.  These preventative strikes, with all the military importance they entail, must be made within the framework of the law.  The saying “when the cannons roar, the muses are silent” is well known. A similar idea was expressed by Cicero, who said: “during war, the laws are silent” (silent enim legis inter arma).  Those sayings are regrettable.  They reflect neither the existing law nor the desirable law.  It is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws.  Every struggle of the state—against terrorism or any other enemy—is conducted according to rules and law.  There is always law which the state must comply with.  There are no “black holes.”³⁰    

To develop ethical competence, the American warfighter should learn to identify when the enemy is using splitting as a psychological defense.  The warfighter should realize that enemy is unable to tolerate the ambivalence of armed conflict (i.e., I can fight the enemy whilst simultaneously recognizing their humanity; I know they are not evil even if they are my enemy).  The warfighter can observe how authoritarianism is associated with the tendency to split the world into extremes, and actively resist this tendency and its corollary, authoritarianism.  The warfighter can use their knowledge of splitting to discern when reasoning with an enemy who does this will not produce actionable results (which wastes time, resources, and manpower that could be directed to more realistic tasks with a greater likelihood of success).  Most important, the warfighter must ensure that they do not become that which they stand above. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, in his work, named, ironically, Beyond Good and Evil, wrote:

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.³¹

It is when people can see beyond the illusory dichotomy of good or evil that peace is possible.  Not because conflict necessarily stops, but because the warfighter stops seeing conflict as an “us or them” zero sum game.  When one’s perspective is expanded and one’s understanding is increased, that one develops greater discernment and consciousness of the world. 

The Supreme Court of Israel rightly said, “it is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws.”  But this is only meaningful to the degree that all parties to the conflict adhere to the controlling laws.  No person is all bad or all good but both.  To be more ethical, the warfighter must understand this and learn to recognize when the enemy does not.  Such recognition is not for the purpose of pointing fingers or laying blame but to enable the warfighter to be better—to fight the monsters without becoming a monster.  Make no mistake, in armed combat enemy hostility will be met with appropriate and lawful means.  This is the Law of War.  But the American warfighter must not lose themselves in the process.  They must remain ethical through it all, and in this, they “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”³²      

MORALIZATION

This brings us to the last of the three psychological defenses—moralization.  Although moralization is a higher-order or mature defensive process (unlike projection and splitting which are lower-order “primitive” defenses), it is a defense often used by the enemy to justify their violence toward American forces.  Unlike projection and splitting, moralization does not involve lower levels of psychic integration.  Rather, this defense is on par with other mature defenses that involve a high degree of cognitive intelligence (e.g., intellectualization, rationalization).  According to McWilliams:       

Moralization is a close relative of rationalization.  When one is rationalizing, one unconsciously seeks cognitively acceptable grounds for one’s direction; when one is moralizing, one seeks ways to feel it is one’s duty to pursue that course.  Rationalization converts what the person already wants into reasonable language; moralization puts it into the realm of the justified or morally obligatory.³³  

Despite its distinction as a higher-order defense, moralization nevertheless seems to be an extension of splitting. 

Moralization may be regarded as a developmentally advanced version of splitting.  Although I have not seen it presented that way in the psychoanalytic literature, it makes sense that an inclination to moralize would be the natural later stage of the primitive tendency to make gross good–bad distinctions.  While splitting occurs naturally in the child before there is an integrated self capable of ambivalence, moralization resolves, by recourse to principle, mixed feelings that the evolving self has become able to suffer.  From moralization one can infer the operation of a superego, albeit usually a rigid and punitive one that requires a contrast group of “others,” or “those people” who lack the ethical sensibilities of the moralizer.³⁴ 

In the context of armed conflict, the enemy justifies their contempt or hatred of American forces by believing it their moral duty to destroy the “evil” United States, one warfighter at a time (or many at once).  Because, according to this thinking, the individual warfighter represents the hated object (the United States), so they must also be destroyed.  By believing it to be a moral obligation versus a job description or regular profession, the enemy possesses a deeper, more meaningful motivation to kill Americans.  In this case, to not do so is to fail at their moral duty.  This makes the enemy more dangerous because the likelihood of killing the “other” is greater.     

With moralization, killing not only becomes easier to cope with, but it also gives the enemy a sense of pride and confirms their moral superiority.  But to justify this duty, the enemy must first see the American warfighter as all bad or evil (splitting).  To kill someone who is innocent can produce psychological disturbance in the enemy, possibly leading to trauma.  Ridding the world of evil, however, can be euphoric—boosting self-esteem.  And herein lies the trick: moralizing killing American forces.  A moralized enemy is a more effective killing machine than a demoralized one.  

Because it involves a superior sense of morality, moralization is often embedded in religious ideologies.  It is often the case that the enemy uses religion as a shield to hide behind and a justification for killing.  Nevertheless, both international and national laws include protection of religious beliefs; thus, the American warfighter should watch for moralization by the enemy whilst maintaining respect and tolerance for lawful religious beliefs and observances.   

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Article 1, Section 3 of the United Nations Charter states the following about religious freedom:

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion…³⁵

   Article 55 of the Charter states:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

…universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.³⁶

Although it applies to American citizens and not the enemy, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the following about religious freedom:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…³⁷

Additionally, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom drafted the International Human Rights Standards: Selected Provisions on Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion or Belief that covers the following:

This document sets forth the relevant provisions of international instruments, as well as further information concerning international standards concerning the protection of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief.³⁸

Tolerance for freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief is fundamental to being a mature human.  This is especially important for the warfighter who will inevitably encounter various religious beliefs and ideologies during armed conflict.  To use force to violate another’s beliefs is to infringe on their free will.  Even if the enemy is using their religious beliefs as a justification to harm or kill another who is identified as “evil” or “bad” (moralization), any response, legal or military, must be in relation to the conduct of the enemy, not their belief per se.  This is reflected in international and national law.  

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter addresses the right to self-defense “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…”³⁹  Thus, under this article there must be some kind of conduct that occurred (“armed attack”) for self-defense to be justified.  Self-defense here is not conditioned on the religious belief that American forces should be destroyed.   

Article 2(4) prohibits threats of force:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.⁴⁰

The threat of force implies the intent to engage in conduct (use of force that was threatened).  Thus, threatening to use force against another, even if motivated by religious beliefs, is prohibited because the threat related to conduct to be engaged in.  It follows that any prosecution of such threats would touch the threatened conduct, not the religious beliefs behind the threat.  

Under the General Principles of Liability for a criminal offense from the Model Penal Code, the “Explanatory Note” states the following regarding criminal liability:

The fundamental predicate for all criminal liability, that the guilt of the defendant be based upon conduct, and that the conduct include a voluntary act or an omission to perform an act of which the defendant was physically capable.  Under the Code, liability cannot be based upon mere thoughts, upon physical conditions, or upon involuntary movements.⁴¹ 

Thus, the general consensus relating to substantive criminal law in the United States necessitates conduct as a prerequisite to prosecution.  Criminal law punishes the actus reus (guilty deed).  Even when a criminal offense involves a mens rea (guilty mind) element, there must still be conduct it attaches to.  Moreover, the desire to kill someone is distinguishable from the religious belief held that that someone is evil and should be exterminated.  American jurisprudence recognizes that religious beliefs should be distinguished from criminal conduct, and this is reflected in evidentiary law.  Federal Rule of Evidence 610, Religious Beliefs or Opinions, states:

Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.⁴²

Suffice it to say, the religious beliefs of the enemy are legally protected and should not be unlawfully infringed by the American warfighter in armed conflict.  Ethical competency requires tolerating the beliefs of others, especially when those beliefs may contradict the beliefs of the warfighter.  This does not mean the warfighter must accept the beliefs per se, only that they must accept the right of the enemy to have those beliefs.  Both international and national law permits the prosecution of conduct that violates applicable rules and prohibitions.  Thus, although the enemy is free to believe what it wants, it is not free to act out on those beliefs if such conduct is unlawful.  

In the context of moralization as a psychological defense mechanism used by the enemy, religious belief would be the specific justification for hostility toward American forces whereas moralization would be the process whereby the motivating belief is acted out (If one believes they are superior, any belief can be used as a battering ram).  For this reason, attacking or addressing the religious belief per se will do little to resolve the issue if the enemy is predisposed to moralize as a psychological defense.  No matter what belief they use to justify persecuting others who are lesser (morally inferior), the defensive process that defines their mental functioning remains intact.  In this case, even if their religious beliefs diminished, they would likely jump to other beliefs that justified violence toward American forces.    

The objective for the American warfighter should be to simply identify the moralization defense underlying the behavior of the enemy.  Someone who moralizes is not likely to stop without intervention in a psychotherapeutic context with a trained professional (which the American warfighter is not).  Moralization, like rationalization, is a higher-order defensive process.  It serves a functional purpose and, unless it is maladaptive according to that culture’s norms, will likely persist.  In the case of an enemy whose religious beliefs reinforce violence toward the “evil” U.S. forces, the enemy will continue to moralize killing American warfighters.  Importantly, an enemy that moralizes likely also engages in splitting, and it follows, projection (splitting is a form of projection).  This means if their psychic structure involves all of these, the low-integration factor relating to projection and splitting may override the high-order defense of moralization, diminishing its effects that would otherwise contribute to healthier functioning.

CONCLUSION

Understanding how these psychological defense mechanisms influence the thinking and behavior of the enemy can increase the ethical literacy of the American warfighter.  The advancements in weapons technology and magnitude of their destructive capacity necessitate greater ethical oversight to ensure war is waged in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights laws.  In a time where one weapon can annihilate millions of people in seconds, being able to understand the individual controlling these weapons is critical.  Importantly, seeing the person in the “enemy” can reduce mistreatment from misunderstanding and poor emotional regulation on the part of the American warfighter.  We live in the Age of Information where the internet enables a single deed to travel thousands of miles in a short time, influencing millions of people to think, feel, and behave a certain way.  Ethical competency in armed conflict can mitigate potentially damaging incidents, aligning U.S. military forces with humanitarian principles and laws of war.

References

¹ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

² INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, COMMENTARY OF 1952: CONVENTION (I) FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD. GENEVA, 12 AUGUST 1949 (2026), https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/preamble/commentary/1952?activeTab=.

³ HCJ 46 Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel I.L.M. 375 (2006).

⁴ Sun Tzu, Art of War, THE INTERNET CLASSICS ARCHIVE (April 11, 2026), https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html.    

⁵ PDM TASK FORCE, PSYCHODYNAMIC DIAGNOSTIC MANUAL 17 (Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations 2006).  

⁶ Id.

⁷ AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, APA DICTIONARY OF PSYCHOLOGY 689 (Gary R. VandenBos ed., 1^st ed. 2007).

⁸ Id.

⁹ AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 14 (David J. Kupfer ed. et al., 5^TH ed. 2013).  

¹⁰ PDM, supra, at 18.

¹¹ DSM, supra, at 14.

¹² APA, supra, at 689.

¹³ Id. at 262.

¹⁴ NANCY MCWILLIAMS, PSYCHOANALYTIC DIAGNOSIS: UNDERSTANDING PERSONALITY STRUCTURE IN THE CLINCAL PROCESS (2nd ed., The Guilford Press 2011).

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, supra.

¹⁷ Sun Tzu, supra.

¹⁸ APA, supra, at 740.

¹⁹ MCWILLIAMS, supra.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ Id.

²² PDM, supra, at 627.

²³ APA, supra, at 885.

²⁴ MCWILLIAMS, supra.

²⁵ APA, supra, at 885.

²⁶ MCWILLIAMS, supra.

²⁷ See PDM, supra, at 643, 644.

²⁸ MCWILLIAMS, supra.

²⁹ CARL G. JUNG, AION: RESEARCHES INTO THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE SELF (2nd ed., Princeton University Press 1970), https://ia600707.us.archive.org/17/items/collectedworksof92cgju/collectedworksof92cgju.pdf.

³⁰ HCJ, supra.

³¹ FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL (Arcturus Publishing 2020).

³² UNITED NATIONS, UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter

³³ MCWILLIAMS, supra.

³⁴ Id.

³⁵ UNITED NATIONS, supra.

³⁶ Id.

³⁷ MERRIAM-WEBSTER, MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY OF LAW 628 (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 2016).

³⁸ UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS: SELECTED PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE, AND RELIGION OR BELIEF (2026).

³⁹ UNITED NATIONS, supra.

⁴⁰ Id.

⁴¹ AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL PENAL CODE 20 (1985).

⁴² FED. R. EVID. 610.

Author’s Bio

Richard Mathewson has a diverse collection of experiences and education.  He entered into the U.S. Army young, trained as a military police officer, learning order, force, and discipline inside a structured authority.  After military service, his work as a private investigator and psychological profiler involved refining surveillance, behavioral analysis, and evidentiary precision.  He pursued formal study in religion, grounding in moral architecture and belief systems.  He completed a master's degree in psychology, deepening his understanding of trauma, radicalization, and human behavior under stress.  He earned a Juris Doctor, equipping himself with the language of law, institutional limits, and lawful force.  Now he leads The Kincade Society, operating at the intersection of governance, advocacy, and public responsibility.

He can be contacted at thekincadesociety@protonmail.com or (860) 374-8759 for further information on this topic and how The Kincade Society can offer practical solutions related to these real-world problems.