"So they've got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won't get away this time!" Colonel Chesty Puller, USMC
I'm going to provide a topical explanation of combat compliance. Please note that as a U.S. Marine, I do not support Bush or the Neo-Con warfighting agenda. Iraq was based on a lie and the blood spilt will stain Bush for all of eternity. Bush should be held accountable! That being said Warfare is as old as time. Here is an introduction to warfare specifically combat compliance from a PROGRESSIVE, ANTI-BUSH, U.S. Marine. Ooh Rah!
In a fog, men were coming from all corners of the U.S. in the middle of the night. They stepped off the bus with Marine Corps Drill Instructors screaming at the top of their lungs. Everyone moved quickly to comply with the orders that the Drill Instructors were barking but it seamed that no matter how quickly or accurately they performed it was never good enough. Later on in recruit training those recruits learned that instant obedience to orders is not only demanded but someday may save their life. Being one of those recruits and ultimately graduating and becoming a U.S. Marine, "instant obedience to orders", unit cohesion, and Corps Values were instilled from the earliest days of boot camp. Individualism, original thought, and nonconformity was not tolerated and potentially could get individuals killed in combat. Marines are killers. Maximum compliance in combat is not only expected but celebrated. "Come on, you sons of bitches-do you want to live forever?" Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly USMC Battle of Belleau Wood.
First and foremost let's have a working definition of warfare. Warfare is coordinated inter-societal violence. Warfare can be thought about in a variety of ways. Warfare is something that happens between states or empires or competing civilizations. Warfare doesn't just happen, there is a choice made. This has consequences for the whole society. A war needs money, soldiers; it needs to mobilize its resources if it is to be successful. Warfare is not just something that occurs; it's not a random act. It involves the coordination between inter societal violence. Warfare demands that a society that fights war have the ability to coordinate itself to do violence across space. A government coordinates a society to fight other societies. Warfare always involves violence even if it's small in scale or limited.
The bonding of service members is essential in understanding compliance. In the Marine Corps we call it Esprit de' Corps which translates in French to a common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of a group. Combat involves team production. However we know that compliance is a variable which comes in many different forms and ultimately determines the effectiveness of team production.
Militaries are hierarchies. There is a chain of command in which service members are expected to follow lawful orders from superiors. Failure to obey a lawful order on the battlefield is treason and is punishable by death. For example under the Uniform Code of Military Justice unauthorized absence in time of war is punishable by death. People don't program themselves or behave as they see fit, they respond to commands from superiors. To hold or attack a position is a lawful order. However one must take into account that there is a range of compliance. If compliance had no variable characteristics there would be nothing to explain. People are programmed to behave at that level. However we know that a variable is at work in a range stretching from maximum compliance to maximum non-compliance.
The French infantry 5th (1914-1918) demonstrated fairly high compliance. In 1917 the French begin to resist and openly reject the combat commands from their officers. The French would mutiny against what they saw as suicidal combat commands. They were no longer willing to go across the trenches to attack. The mutinies are ultimately pacified, by better food, more leave etc. The French perceive that the Americans will tip the balance and they come back to fighting. This French infantry unit displays all levels of compliance. This shows that compliance is a variable problem that at times can be difficult to explain. The French showed maximum non-compliance; mutiny although not frequent is common enough to be interesting. Most militaries show signs of cracking or mutiny at some point. It's the farthest in terms of non-compliance.
It might be helpful to think of warfare on a compliance continuum. Think of it as a mathematical continuum from non-compliance to maximum compliance. Historically we see a range from minimum to maximum.
Minimum non-compliance; shirking, free riding, disobeying just enough so that this non-compliance tends to defeat commands is towards the non-compliance end of the spectrum. All commands have a purpose. If enough begin to shirk, say their sick, march too slowly, malinger, this non-compliance can defeat military commands. All militaries are afraid of this type. Shirking or free riding can undermine an entire military service. Fraternization or inappropriate relationships between two opposing forces or inappropriate relationships between officer and enlisted has been around since the creation of chains of command. In WWI and the American Civil War when there was a lull in the fight the warriors in effect might declare a truce with the enemy during Easter or Christmas. The very same soldiers who fraternize would then go back to killing each other. In some circumstances soldiers want a truce or peace in a long war and yet these same soldiers are willing to fight and kill the enemy in many other circumstances. This is a form of minimum non-compliance.
Minimum Compliance or routine compliance is when the soldier follows orders minimumaly; they attack and follow the commands they have received but never go above and beyond the call of duty. This is the routine or minimum compliance expected by the officer corps.
Maximum Compliance, beyond routine commands is when the soldiers do more than what they are expected or commanded. Often times maximum compliance is heroic behavior like jumping on a grenade to save the platoon. This combat compliance is rare however you will see this heroic behavior over and over again in many militaries in many wars.
The 54th Massachusetts was recruited from freedmen. The average size was about a thousand soldiers on both sides. The soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts pressured their officers to fight even though the confederacy issued an executive order that all blacks caught would be enslaved or killed on the spot. The unit of the 54th Mass assaulted a well fortified fort. No order could've or would've been given for them to behave this way.
At Missionary Ridge during the US Civil War a Union Army is encircled in Chattanooga TN. The Confederates try to break this circle. At one point in the battle the whole Union regiment begins to move up a ridge that the confederates had fortified. They do it because they want to break out and end the battle. They start going up the ridge and out distance their officers until they take the ridge. General Grant asked who gave that order and no one claimed responsibility. This is another example of maximum compliance.
If your going to comply with combat commands you have to have some standard operating procedures for fighting wars. In modern militaries SOP is engrained in basic training. Combat involves team work and collective action. You have to be taught to fight in a way that will best allow you to survive. Standard operating procedures is a necessary precondition of any kind of compliance. Without it militaries become disorganized mobs.
Combat is not an individual act. You're never just an Army of one. You're an Army of many. Militaries must also consider collective action problems; shirking, they must learn to act as a cohesive unit; they can't be in it for themselves. The alternative is an armed mob left exposed to the mortal risk of the enemy. Any military force that cannot learn cohesion cannot give combat compliance. Combat is team production and requires collective action. If you're going to have combat you've got to have unit cohesion. Soldiers comply because they fight for each other. If people in Combat fight for each other they can also mutiny and go home collectively. These are the preconditions of compliance.
Automaticity or automatic behavior is where people comply in combat because they are trained to do so. Compliance becomes automatic. A ritual form of behavior. Behavior in combat is best explained as automatic or reflexive behavior. The basic problem with the Automaticity arguments is that automaticity seems to make impossible what we know to be true. We would never expect soldiers to mutiny if automaticity were true.
Habituation or a habitual reflex is where you can train humans the way you can train Pavlov's dog for example through conditioning. The individual won't think he will simply respond. Militaries pay real cost to train their personnel to learn things that will make them aware and make it easier for them to comply with the orders they receive in a combat situation. If people can be trained like Pavlov's dog why do we see a continuum and not just compliance the whole time? What's the significance? It's not that it shows us why people comply it shows us how people in the military learn important things. Habit. The model shows us that people in combat need preconditions to comply. They need to learn SOP and unit cohesion or in the Marine Corps Esprit de Corps. Much of military training is not to condition people so that they are Pavlov's dog but that they learn the necessary conditions of warfighting.
Some argue that soldiers comply because they are coerced. You can be shot or dishonorably discharged or sent to prison for disobeying a lawful order, mutiny, unauthorized absence etc. Coercion carries cost. Imagine a military that motivates through coercion. If a military has to rely on coercion alone that will be very costly for two reasons; efficiency and resistance. Take for example the Nazi's and Soviet Experience; Officers became more and more coercive in the Great World War. As the war became bleaker and more destructive both the Nazi's and Soviets tried to induce compliance through more and more coercion. In then end they found it was too costly to generate mass compliance.
Physical entrapment is where officers will position their military in such a way that their soldiers have no other way out than fighting. If they don't fight they face certain death. Commanders maneuver their troops where they can't escape, they can't not comply. Compliance becomes automatic. It is highly inefficient trying to entrap your troops on the combat field. It is much more efficient to maneuver them more efficiently. Entrapment doesn't make sense and results in waste and the troops can retaliate or take revenge upon those who utilize this method.
There is definite incentive to be a team player. Without team production combat won't work. Troops must trust and fight for one another. This comradeship can be cracked or broken. Unit cohesion is necessary to militaries to be successful in combat.
A useful assumption War is a function of costs and benefits. Even if states go to war it's helpful to think in terms of balance of costs and benefits from actually fighting too committing violence on a large scale. A good assumption is the net benefits are greater than the net costs. What's in it for the people that fight? Warfare must be understood as a balance of costs and benefits. You would not assume that people would go to war unless the net benefits are perceived to be greater than the net costs.
The war choice is where issues of costs and benefits come into play. Someone actually has to choose to start a war. Wars just don't happen by random acts or as an act of nature. To mobilize the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines takes domestic commitment of manpower, money, and planning. The rational war choice which is also referred to as (the rational gamble) essentially tells us that there is a probability of winning and loosing. The state or government has to look at the balance of cost and benefits. They have to choose between war and peace. In some circumstances war is not always a mistake. It's not always made by a bad decision. Sometimes the only rational choice is war. Sometimes it can be very risky. Sometimes war is the rational choice. A decision maker can say war is the rational gamble or choice. How might war ever be a rational choice? What if you're a state that is a great power that is declining and you are increasingly threatened from within as well as from the outside? Your destruction as a state hangs in the states decision to go to war. Austria-Hungary was in this position and died in World War I making the war choice hoping to survive the great World War. When Austria-Hungary chooses to attack Serbia, the assumption was Austria-Hungary would begin to disintegrate and die as a state. Fight or not fight it faced the possibility of destruction. The rational choice may have been the war choice. Gambling however is not irrational. Gambling is making a wager on costs and benefits.
The paradox of perilous commitment is the domestic commitment of ordinary people who pay the costs of fighting wars. The cost to society in warfighting has actually increased and escalated dramatically due to the industrialization of warfighting. In World War I and World War II whole societies were mobilized and coordinated to fight. By the 20th century the cost of fighting war continues to escalate. You would expect for people to say no but most did not they complied.
During World War I and II most European states had accepted mass conscription (the draft). This was a cost. Many of the major and minor powers were conscripting 60-70% of their young men. Contrary to popular belief they were not terribly patriotic.
Before the end of the 18th Century we see the Reinvention of the Citizen Soldier. The ancient Greeks and Romans had fought with Citizen Soldiers hence the term reinvention. Extending through wars we see the ability of Governments to mobilize entire societies and in some cases prevail in the end. The secret weapon was the creation of a new kind of army based on citizens who become soldiers with the expectation of returning to civilian life. The citizen soldier is a highly specialized soldier who is familiar with certain forms of technology, aircraft, munitions, sea going vessels etc. French Armies were based on mass conscription. Most Militaries prior to the 18th century had been made up of Aristocrats and Nobles or long service professionals whose ultimate loyalty was to the service. Citizen soldiers were fighting for their states, their republic, citizenship, homeland, and family, with the goal of fighting and possibly winning increasingly long and costly wars.
A great example of the citizen soldier was found in the forming of our country. In the American Revolution (1775-83), the costs were often underestimated. The British and their mercenary allies destroyed a number of cities. They burned down many cities and farms. Europe initially thought the American experiment would fail. The armies that fight for the American Revolution ultimately see themselves as American Citizens and Citizens of their respective states. Ultimately they kept fighting because of some kind of commitment to the early American Republic. The Cost to the Americans was very high. Much of the Early American Republic was damaged by the American Revolution. Without Citizen Soldiers however the experiment in democracy would not have worked.
During the World Wars until the invasion of Russia, France always had to fight against a coalition of countries with greater resources but not always greater leadership. France was able to take to the battlefield and defeat coalitions that were much better prepared than the French. France was able to mobilize its resources year after year, and the French military reputation was almost a reputation for invincibility. They could not be beat by any single power or by coalitions. France was able to generate greater domestic commitment to fight these wars. How were these Governments able to generate the domestic commitment that allowed those states to fight and win long costly wars?
Recruits for militaries can be volunteers, conscripted, or lured with incentives. For the Romans and Aztecs they were socially validated. Some individuals need self validation or are seeking adventure. Some believe that they have a moral obligation or service ethic to fight for their state. Others do it for Economic benefits such as the G.I. Bill or retirement benefits.
Compliance bonus is the idea that people who fight will receive from their state a compliance bonus. When you come home after the war we will guarantee an improvement in your condition. We will provide you with a pension or medical care that you might not have had access to prior to enlisting or commissioning. Their sacrifice will indeed be rewarded when they come home. This is part of the origin of the G. I. Bill.
Domestic Commitment matters. Domestic commitment does not cause war. But it does determine who is likely to win and loose. Democracies have been better in the most part in winning wars because of the level of domestic commitment. Total wars and global wars where the stakes are the survival of states and people it should not be surprising that democracies are able to generate greater domestic commitment. Although there are strong objections it is still possible to see combat as a rational act and can do more or less well; bravely; in terms of commitment. Rationality is still apart of combat. Combat needs to be understood as part of the rational historical human experience. It's not a lottery of nature. It's something that humans have always done and probably will always do. Combat has to be understood as part of a larger explanation in the larger world. With combat come all levels of compliance and definitive costs and benefits to states, people, and regimes.
My hope is that our servicemen are brought home out of harms way. If terrorist who want to kill innocent people exist find them and eliminate them but do not invade a sovereign nation and lie about the reason for the occuapation. How many more must die for Bush's lie? Is the world safer now than a decade ago? The answer is obvious. The troops are hero's and Bush and the radical Neo-Con agenda is to blame for worlds instability. I have faith that Americans are waking up to the destructive nature of the Bush Doctrine and will vote these warhawks out of office.
Isn't it funny that many of us who have served want peace, and those who have shirked and dodged military service(Cheney, Bush, Rice, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) are eager to spill blood at any cost and paint those who disagree as supporting terrorism. As a U.S. Marine I will continue to speak my mind and expend all of my energy to educate Americans that there is a better way. A new day is coming which will include peace and prosperity.
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!" Eleanor Roosevelt