Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?
Heralding S.L.A Marshall and other studies from World War II it seems that the United States Army and Western scholars have concluded that soldiers do not fight for a cause but for their brothers in battle.
Does the statement that soldiers only fight for their brothers in battle really apply to non-Western militiaries? We would be guilty of mirrior imaging if we supposed to this to be true in all cases.
In particular what does our guerrilla enemy fight for? Can we really presume that the lone suicide bomber is fighting for his bro in the foxhole next to him?
Why is that revolutionaries from Maoists to Islamists say that ideological fervor is the most important element in creating a soldier yet we deny this very premise?
Al-Suri, author of The Global Call for Islamic Resistance argues
Quote:
that ideological training is the number one factor in creating a competenet Islamic soldier.
Brynjar Lia stated:
Quote:
The decisive factor for successful jihadi training is the moral motivation and the desire to fight, not knowledge in the use of arms, al-Suri asserts. If the ideological program is not fully digested and the mental preparation is absent, weapons training is of no use.
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_...t_news%5D=1001
It's a confluence of reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
I have heard this a lot, but no one ever cites the studies. I don't doubt what you are saying is true, but I would like some citations if you have them.
Abu, I am not arguing against the sound finding that unit cohesion plays a "critical" role (interpret as trust in your comrades), but it is not the sole reason that men fight. Men in cohesive units fight better.
In addition to the comments below, I would add that men join organizations where they are likely to share a common ideology. If you look at the performance of the Army in the latter years of the Vietnam conflict there were some units that had terrible discipline and combat records (Soldiers fragging their officers, desertion rates, etc.). I ain't no scientist, but I think it is because collectively as a unit they didn't believe the war (they'd lost their ideological base for fighting), and group/organizational behavior reinforced the bad discipline. The Soldiers that went into Afghanistan in 2001 were ideologically motivated and their ideology was reinforced by their comrades.
IMO men fight for a confluence of reasons, not just because their comrades are there next to them.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/army/...ersfight_2.htm
Quote:
Stouffer argued that ideology, patriotism, or fighting for the cause were not major factors in combat motivation. “Surprisingly, many soldiers in Iraq were motivated by patriotic ideals,” Wong said.
Liberating the people and bringing freedom were common themes in describing combat motivation, the report stated.
Wong credits today’s volunteer Army having “more politically savvy” soldiers as the reason for the change. He said today’s more educated soldiers have a better understanding of the overall mission and provide a “truly professional army.”
There is link at the end of the article to the actual study.
Purpose and ideology are also important
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...le6865359.ece#
Quote:
Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.
Quote:
“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”
Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.”