Combat Participation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

Segn me dicen, ones relationships with those in his/her unit tend to be the single most important motivating factor for those in combat situations. If that is indeed the case it should hold true in spite of and possibly even more strongly because of ones own assessment of the grander design.

---

You are correct in that the tightest personal bonding is in groups of four - where they 'do it for their mates'. The better units have strong unit cohesion where they 'do it for the regiment'.

There are always those who keep apart and do not bond with others to the extent that they will not place themselves at risk for another. These people are always looking out for No 1 and to hell with the rest. Easy for these people to decide that combat exposure is not for them and they will be able to produce all manner of excuses as to why they are not prepared to expose themselves to the danger of combat. Lack of belief in the 'cause' is the usual one... but never is there an admission that there is a lack of courage.

Now before I hear that soldier X, with a prior record of courageous combat exposure, is one who is now attempting to avoid a combat tour let me remind all of Lord Moran's findings (in his 'must read' book The Anatomy of Courage) that, in summary, courage is drawn from a well that is never replenished.

The best advice to the heroes who find their 'well' of courage used up is to get out of the service rather than stay and be exposed for the real reason they need to avoid combat exposure. Nothing is simple.

... oh yes and in addition. This 'problem' can spread like a cancer from individuals to groups as with the US experience of combat avoidance/refusal in Vietnam. Kill it before it spreads.

My mother told me when I was young not to jump from a skyscraper just because others did so.
I for one would never feel that it would be against my honour or friendship not to jump.


Look at it this way; some armies have fought campaigns with great displays of courage, others not so. It's not necessarily the honour of the soldiers, their volunteering before the war etc that makes the difference. Sometimes it's simply their judgement that taking such risks would be stupid. In fact, it might even be stupid from the society's perspective, for a 25 y.o. has hardly paid back all the upbringing and education he got from the society already.
To die in a stupid conflict that serves no purpose means he'll never repay his debt to society (for his sacrifice would be of no use*).


Finally, there's more than survival motives that can keep one away from accepting deployment. They may have bonded more with their family than with expeditionary warfare, or they may expect to do useless harm to foreigners if deployed. You know, some people actually anticipate that #### happens in war and don't want to risk becoming a bad guy for a cause that's not worth the risk.


*: This appears to be a wide-spread difference to world war-time attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 82redleg

I'd be interested on where you found these. I haven't seen them. The deployment avoiders I've seen over the last 10 years have generally been CSS junior enlisted with external issues, often those that joined AFTER the war started.

---

82d redleg,


I first saw these types in I Corps HQ in '05. I am now serving with some of these types in Saudi Arabia. I'm told that many of these types can be found in the halls of the Pentagon though I cannot confirm that since I've never been in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Lack of principle. Or ethical lapse. Either is also appropriate.

---

Concur. This is a volunteer force. If officers in particular have ethical issues, they should resign. Otherwise they're just welfare mothers wearing a pretty uniform instead of a mu-mu.

Every instance of actual fear on mission I have seen, whether in my self, my men, or other units, has been tied to a lack of leader-reinforced purpose and leader-reinforced explanation of what is happening (I mean this in the most basic sense as in "we have to kill those guys over there because they are the enemy). Nothing seems to galvanize men more quickly than the belief that what they are about to do matters. Getting them to believe that is part of the "art of leadership".

So much so that physical danger became preoccupying when a sense of purpose was lost. Yet it was amazing to see how much the men, and my self would accept as a matter of risk when there was a conviction that the risk had to be accepted for mission success. This implies believing that mission success is important. And it seems this is the point where "for my battle-buddy" motivation plays a strong role.

I would also venture to say that this sense of leader-driven purpose becomes more important when professionalism is weak, as it is in the junior enlisted and in those junior officers and nco's who got into the warmaking business for the "wrong reasons" (e.g. college tuition, avenge 9/11, spread democracy, etc). This speaks to my earlier post on ideology in this thread.

Men have always fought hard when their convictions match their belief that force is necessary. The challenge comes in shaping those convictions so they can withstand time and experience. VC, Jihadi, or Nazi fanatic prove the case over and over again. The difference is that VC and Jihadi tended to rely on motivation as enough, thereby being persistent but persistently losing engagements against conventional, barely professional forces. The Nazi/fatherland fanatic, when matched with the operational skill of the Wermacht (in the best Wermacht formations as well as in the I and II SS Panzer Corps mid-43 to late 44) made for a persistent and dangerous conventional force.

Greater point to me is that men fight hardest when their leaders make them believe in why they are fighting and/or when they feel someone they care about is in danger (squad-mate). The former makes them take on dangerous missions, the latter makes them fight hard but only to the point of the end of the danger. I think this also speaks to the FOB mentality on 2003-2006 as all sense of purpose was lost in the leadership and "get my men home safely" became a noble goal.

Scouts out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

My mother told me when I was young not to jump from a skyscraper just because others did so.... You know, some people actually anticipate that #### happens in war and don't want to risk becoming a bad guy for a cause that's not worth the risk.

---

However, none of that changes the basic fact the no thinking individual should fail to know what he or she is volunteering for and if their calculations mirror yours, then they should simply should have sought another line of work in the first place. One should not choose a line of work that demands one make some sacrifices of logic, reason, comfort, safety and excessive concern for human rights and welfare unless one is prepared to do that. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

Conversely, if one freely elects to take the pay and accept the promotions and perquisites then one has a responsibility to perform per the contract -- or one can take the money then elect to be schmuck. One always has choices... :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparapet

Every instance of actual fear on mission I have seen, whether in my self, my men, or other units, has been tied to a lack of leader-reinforced purpose and leader-reinforced explanation of what is happening (I mean this in the most basic sense as in "we have to kill those guys over there because they are the enemy). Nothing seems to galvanize men more quickly than the belief that what they are about to do matters. Getting them to believe that is part of the "art of leadership".

---

Your whole post is fantastic but this is SWC quote of the year stuff. If we still do quotes around here? if not it is till excellant! or as we say down souuth Ya dun good!:)