Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?

[War Hammer]

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

that ideological training is the number one factor in creating a competenet Islamic soldier.

Brynjar Lia stated:

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

[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.

[Bill Moore]

There were subsequent studies that indicated these studies were biased and didn't paint a complete picture. It was determined that U.S. Soldiers fight for a variety of reasons (ideology, revenge, peer pressure, glory, economic reasons, pack mentality, etc.) that vary person by person and as Schmedlap pointed out by time and location.

Unfortunately these studies are never questioned and they become urban legends in our force. It would be interesting to see how many other myths have shaped our policy and doctrine over the years (such as you have to have 3:1 odds when you're attacking). History tells us otherwise, but the myth persists.

[William F. Owen]

It would be interesting to see how many other myths have shaped our policy and doctrine over the years (such as you have to have 3:1 odds when you're attacking). History tells us otherwise, but the myth persists.

Myth and legend within the military could fill several books. It's actually easier to track what is based on actual evidence. Myth and legend are uniquely powerful within militaries, and a lot of thinking reflects purely myth - Manoeuvre Warfare is based on Myth. 4gw is entirely myth based.

[M-A Lagrange]

Why soldiers - now - would fight for a cause?

The ones who are actually having a real cause to defend are the insurgents. They fight for whatever reason (free a country, establish the world of god, get access to money...) but they are the ones engaging themselves for a cause.

Imposing as a axiom that Western soldiers are fighting for a cause is just part of the "political" process of justifying the use of violence by West under the philisophy of a Just War. (Do not mistake me, each and every men or women joining the army may do it for a cause, not just for scholarship or money).

Denying to the enemy the fact that he is actually fighting for a cause is just part of the process of denying him the right to be a Just Opponent.

By denying to the opponant the right to defend a cause (just or not) we are trying to denie his status of soldier and, in the best case, assimilate him to an outlaw. This process, in the end, leads to the denial of war prisoner status and the justification of unfair, unlawfull, unjust means to conduct war.

[Bill Moore]

The ones who are actually having a real cause to defend are the insurgents. They fight for whatever reason (free a country, establish the world of god, get access to money...) but they are the ones engaging themselves for a cause.

Actually there are academics that would argue this, Dave Kilcullen being one in his book "Accidental Guerrillas". Generally (and since we're not addressing a specific conflict we have to speak in generalities) there are a percentage of hard core believers on both sides, and percentage in the middle that are drug into the fight for other than ideological reasons (perhaps pay or they're coerced). Granted there normally are true believers in every insurgency, but not all.

Imposing as a axiom that Western soldiers are fighting for a cause is just part of the "political" process of justifying the use of violence by West under the philisophy of a Just War. (Do not mistake me, each and every men or women joining the army may do it for a cause, not just for scholarship or money).

Every country, every militant force must convince its followers and supporters that they're fighting for a just cause to remain politically viable. This is not simply a western trait.

Denying to the enemy the fact that he is actually fighting for a cause is just part of the process of denying him the right to be a Just Opponent.

By denying to the opponant the right to defend a cause (just or not) we are trying to denie his status of soldier and, in the best case, assimilate him to an outlaw. This process, in the end, leads to the denial of war prisoner status and the justification of unfair, unlawfull, unjust means to conduct war.

In every conflict we have used derogatory terms to define our enemy, the dehumanizaton process is important, because it loosens our moral constraints against killing them (Japs, Jerries, Gooks, Ragheads, Skinnies, etc.).

Your point about denying prisoner of war status is a sore point with many and frequently debated by law scholars and those with political agendas on both the left and the right, and I suspect no one has really come up with the right answer because laws as the west knows them are the fruit grown by States, not non-state actors. So when a non-state actor declares war on us, we're left scratching our heads and we're still trying to clarify what it means. However, it is clear to many of us we couldn't effectively fight this type of enemy within the pre-911 legal framework.

[Abu Suleyman]

There were subsequent studies that indicated these studies were biased and didn't paint a complete picture.

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.

[Bill Moore]

However 9/11 has never been a blank check for war crimes and use of torture. Geneva Convention were and are still applicable before and after 9/11. Jus in Bello is what makes the honor of the combattant. Recognizing the adversary as a jus opponant with rights is what preserves the justness of your cause. Otherwise, there are no difference between a soldier and a criminal.

My point wasn't to justify torture, but to accept that targeted killing, extra-ordinary renditions, surveillance programs, etc. that may not have been on the books as legal activities prior to 9/11 (I'm not sure), are needed tools now that need to fall within our legal framework.

Back to your point about the difference between a Soldier a criminal, not all, but many of those non-state actors we're fighting consistently engage in "criminal" acts of the worst kind against us and their own people, yet it seems they're immune from being criticized, so if in fact we're fighting criminals who not respect the laws of war, then do the laws of war apply? That has been the issue from day one as I understand it.

[Bill Moore]

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

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.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...le6865359.ece#

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.

“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.”

[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.