Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?

[Bob's World]

Sometimes I wish that every time someone with a Ph.D. or a Star said the word "Ideology" that a stun gun would go off in their shorts. A kind of IAIED (ignorance activated improvised electrical devise).

Why has the insurgency in Afghanistan lasted so long...why do insurgents fight. Because they have all been indoctrinated at "Taliban University"? We need to give these people some credit. They are no more brainwashed auto matrons than we are.

At the lower level, the rank and file, they appear to me based on what I see here today, the people I talk to, and what I have read about the past couple of thousand years of history of these people in this land is that they fight because they belong here and we don't, and we are here, and they also get paid an honest wage to fight us. This is not rocket science. (Ok, everyone out there who just thought "oh yeah, what about the Islamism ideology", please imagine a stun gun going off in your shorts.)

At the higher end, there are those who are on the "ins" in this country, and those who are on the "outs." If you are in the “ins”, you get to place people in the high positions that control influence, power and money. If you are on the” outs”, you get the scraps. Your family gets the scraps; your tribe gets the scraps. So there will always be those on the “outs” who are looking for their opportunity to get on the “ins”. This may happen when an invading Army rolls into town, and you hitch yourself to that army. It has happened over and over again. Or, if you were on the “ins”, and were put on the “outs” by the invading army you look for cracks to chip away at. A great crack to chip away at is if the new government does not possess a legitimacy recognized by the portion of the populace on the outs. Now, they all want on the “ins”, so you don't have to sell this too hard. Besides, there is an invader in your country and he doesn't belong here and you do.

So, what do you do about this?

First, recognize that there are those on the “ins” and those on the “outs” and they are all looking to either cling to being on the “ins” team, or are looking to get off of the “outs” team. And they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make that happen.

Second, look for chinks and fix them. First and foremost is the legitimacy of the “ins” government. Just because it is 'official' is not good enough. Just because you held elections is not good enough. You have to honestly ask " is it legitimate on terms that mean something to THIS populace?" (Hint, the current government is not perceived as legitimate by anyone, yet alone the "outs" team). Find what means something to this populace and employ it. It may mean that the teams adjust. That's ok, they adjust all the time. Just swallow your pride and work with whoever the new, legitimate "ins" team is.

Third. Reduce your presence. Don't surge, don’t retreat, just go home. Not everyone, but enough so that it is clear that you are not here to occupy or manipulate the place.

Three steps to address "why they fight."

Ideology is like COG theory. Its great fun to think and argue about, but in the end it isn't so important what it is, just that you have thought about it and have one that works.

(Note: No Ph.D.s or Flag officers were harmed in the writing of this post.)

[M-A Lagrange]

Sometimes I wish that every time someone with a Ph.D. or a Star said the word "Ideology" that a stun gun would go off in their shorts. A kind of IAIED (ignorance activated improvised electrical devise).

Why has the insurgency in Afghanistan lasted so long...why do insurgents fight. Because they have all been indoctrinated at "Taliban University"? We need to give these people some credit. They are no more brainwashed auto matrons than we are.

At the lower level, the rank and file, they appear to me based on what I see here today, the people I talk to, and what I have read about the past couple of thousand years of history of these people in this land is that they fight because they belong here and we don't, and we are here, and they also get paid an honest wage to fight us. This is not rocket science. (Ok, everyone out there who just thought "oh yeah, what about the Islamism ideology", please imagine a stun gun going off in your shorts.)

(Note: No Ph.D.s or Flag officers were harmed in the writing of this post.)

Dear Bob, (If I may call you bob)

You are very much right. There are no Taliban University. Just as there are no Insurgent University or Rebel University or War Spoilers University. One thing you do point out is that those poeple have support from population. Therefore there is a great cohesion among them.
"Us" (I mean the West in general) are not supported by anyone. How many times did some of us have to re-explain to the just newly arrived guy that: yes he/she is right but he/she does not get the context, the micro level problematic... And then spoils everything because you just can't count on him, not as a person, but as a support a reinforcement of what you are doing and what has been done. Basically "Our" action does not have any kind of cohesion as you reinvent and re explain hot water everyday internally.
Basically, my observation in the field is that so many times we do share a cause (what ever that cause is) but we do not have cohesion. (I do not want even to enter in the debate of is that cause is right or wrong)

My theoritical question (and I believe this is the right place to ask it as it is the theory and futurist threat place), is does that impact us? Is cause enough to bring cohesion?
All of us are great professionals and profesionnal armies do have great cohesion inside, no doubt on that.
But there is a poor cohesion in between each countries, between civilians and military, between corps...
On the other hand, as you pointed out, there is a great cohesion on the opponent side not just because they share a cause but because they share more: history, land, culture... They belong there. They are a group with "natural" cohesion.

And by extension, the question is: does professionalisation of the armies not increase the distance between the people and the fighters (in a large sense) and finaly ends up being counter productive ?
My first impression is that there is more cohesion in the opponant side as they know they do have support from population while there is less cohesion among coalitions (and I am not speaking only about A-stan or Iraq, the problematic is the same in DRC, Sudan or Lebanon) as there is less support from population to the cause. Hezbollah fighters do have the support of their population. While UN troops in DRC do not have the support of their populations and therefore, even if they share a cause, there is less cohesion among the UN troops than the peace spoilers.

PS: no private or low ranked officers have been harmed in the writting of this post neither have been PhD or flag officers.
But I will remember Bob's wish if ever I get to a flag officer or PhD level...

[Bob's World]

A few thoughts.

1. If one desires the support of the populace, one must first support the populace.
(This is true at home and abroad. So go where the populace at home believes you need to go to accomplisth things it believes must be accomplished; and then do them in a manner that is acceptable to the populace of the place you are at.)

2. Every state, organization, individual, etc has "interests." Our friends are those who we have the most shared interests with as individuals. Not so different as countries. But when the most powerful member of the group either starts believing or demanding that his interests are the ones that everyone else must buy into as well, it creates friction.
(The US is bruising and abusing relationships by demanding the pursuit of interests linked to retaining that most powerful status. Those who see it in there interest to be friends with the most powerful will compromise other interests that they have to support that one interest to a point. But there is always a breaking point on this. Popular friction at home often drives that breaking point)

3. Are professional (regular) militaries less of a bell weather of the populace as a whole than unprofessional (irregular) militaries are? Certainly. At the end of the day the professional soldier goes where he is told to go, and does what he is told to do. It is his job. The irregular soldier was either forced against his will to participate (by draft or threat of violence), or was willing to set family and job aside for a period of time to serve for a particular purpose. At the end of the day his job is back at home doing other things. Pros and Cons to both. America has a tremendous Regular force today; no arguments about it. It is augmented by a very professional irregular force. America also has a tremendous history of warfighting with what was primarily an irregular force (pre-Cold War). Is a Marine or Soldier who left all behind "just" to go fight a war less of a Marine or Soldier than one who makes a career out of that Profession? Is a professional Marine or Soldier less of a citizen than the Marine or Soldier who works a civilian profession until such time as a crisis calls for his service? I think no on both counts. But they are different.

4. Home teams always have the advantage; even when playing a good road team.

[Schmedlap]

I think American Soldiers join the military for a cause. Once they start getting shot at, their pack mentality sets in.

I suspect it is the same for other cultures. I don't think that is transposing our values on them. I think it is human nature for men to defend their pack. The pack identity becomes clear when one pack tries to kill the other.

I would add to my earlier post that young men want to see the elephant and prove themselves. That is not a learned desire. It's part of being a teenager and, if one enjoys the experience, lasts well into adulthood. Remember the often-cited anecdote from Kilcullen when he asked the Afghan teens why they attacked the ODA? I saw the same dynamic in my Soldiers when adjacent units requested assistance. Even if we didn't know who the unit was (just a unit passing along the part of the MSR that bordered our AO), they wanted to get in the fight.

[OfTheTroops]

I believe a great deal of "the cause" depends on the narrative. What is the storied past of the group? Who are the heroes of the community? Everyone has their on cause and reasons (comraderie is not the least). I agree with Schmed in fighting or preparing to fight can be a right of passage. What does the culture value? What is the mythology of the groups? The heroes of A-stan defeated the soviets, they were not police or politicians. Why would you wanna be a Soldier when you could be a rapper or pro baller?

Population winning often boils down to our message vs their message and which one resonates and is supported by action.