“…Considerable work has examined the causal mechanisms that lead militaries to harm civilians. 6 These explanations tend to focus on international, national, or organizational-level factors, such as identity-based antagonism, the regime type that the military represents, the expected strategic costs and benefits on the battlefield, domestic and global pressures, military culture, command enforcement, group ideology, and group socialization and induction rituals (Arreguín-Toft, 2001; Bell, 2016; Cohen, 2013; DeMeritt, 2012; Downes, 2008; Kahl, 2007; Manekin, 2020; Ruffa, 2018; Stanton, 2016; Valentino, 2004, 2014). 7 The fast-paced and relatively decentralized nature of modern warfare, however, means that individual commanders and combatants frequently have considerable latitude in choosing how and when to deploy violence on the battlefield.…”
Section: Partisanship and Adoption Of Norms Of Restraintmentioning
How does partisan identification shape the attitudes of US military officers toward the protection of civilians in war? Drawing on unique cross-cohort surveys of soon-to-be commissioned officers in 12 Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) training battalions, we find that Democratic-leaning cadets generally prioritize norms of civilian protection more than Republican-leaning cadets when confronted with competing values of military advantage and force protection as part of a ‘combatant’s trilemma’. This gap remains partially resilient after sustained exposure to military training and socialization, including in the norms of restraint embodied by principles of combat ethics and the law of war. We attribute these partisan differences to insights from Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which suggests that the moral values of Democrats and Republicans guide their views toward the individual use of force in combat. Our findings have important implications for comprehending the impact of political ideology and military training and socialization on attitudes regarding restraint toward civilians in war. Given the widely recognized conservative composition of the US military’s membership, these findings may help to further inform understanding of US military operations and the underlying causes of US adherence to – or violation of – the laws of armed conflict.
“…Considerable work has examined the causal mechanisms that lead militaries to harm civilians. 6 These explanations tend to focus on international, national, or organizational-level factors, such as identity-based antagonism, the regime type that the military represents, the expected strategic costs and benefits on the battlefield, domestic and global pressures, military culture, command enforcement, group ideology, and group socialization and induction rituals (Arreguín-Toft, 2001; Bell, 2016; Cohen, 2013; DeMeritt, 2012; Downes, 2008; Kahl, 2007; Manekin, 2020; Ruffa, 2018; Stanton, 2016; Valentino, 2004, 2014). 7 The fast-paced and relatively decentralized nature of modern warfare, however, means that individual commanders and combatants frequently have considerable latitude in choosing how and when to deploy violence on the battlefield.…”
Section: Partisanship and Adoption Of Norms Of Restraintmentioning
How does partisan identification shape the attitudes of US military officers toward the protection of civilians in war? Drawing on unique cross-cohort surveys of soon-to-be commissioned officers in 12 Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) training battalions, we find that Democratic-leaning cadets generally prioritize norms of civilian protection more than Republican-leaning cadets when confronted with competing values of military advantage and force protection as part of a ‘combatant’s trilemma’. This gap remains partially resilient after sustained exposure to military training and socialization, including in the norms of restraint embodied by principles of combat ethics and the law of war. We attribute these partisan differences to insights from Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which suggests that the moral values of Democrats and Republicans guide their views toward the individual use of force in combat. Our findings have important implications for comprehending the impact of political ideology and military training and socialization on attitudes regarding restraint toward civilians in war. Given the widely recognized conservative composition of the US military’s membership, these findings may help to further inform understanding of US military operations and the underlying causes of US adherence to – or violation of – the laws of armed conflict.
“…Constructivist IR scholars argue that military culture – the ‘basic assumptions, values, norms, beliefs, and formal knowledge that shape collective understandings’ of military organizations – influences armed group behavior by, in part, ordering members’ preferences regarding force (Kier, 1997: 28; Farrell, 2001; Legro, 1995). As a result, military culture studies find that organizational cultures embodying norms of restraint can limit violence against civilians in wartime (Kahl, 2007; Bell, 2016; Ruffa, 2018).…”
Section: Existing Theories Of Violence and Restraint In Conflictmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 Normative training and education (often occurring in classrooms or other formal training environments) primarily transmit the content of organizational norms, while other socialization mechanisms – occurring often outside of classrooms – reinforce the importance of norms to members. Horizontal, informal Figure 1. The combatant’s trilemma socialization can also occur within organizations, as part of interactive training discussions and peer-based small groups, or outside official organizational socialization processes, such as within subunits (Bell, 2016; Wood & Toppelberg, 2017; Van Maanen, 1978). These pathways, either singularly or in combination, shape target actors’ normative preferences (see e.g.…”
Section: Socialization and Combatant Preferencesmentioning
Can armed groups socialize combatants to norms of restraint – in essence, train soldiers to adopt norms of international humanitarian law on the battlefield? How can social scientists accurately measure such socialization? Despite being the central focus of organizational and ideational theories of conflict, studies to date have not engaged in systematic, survey-based examination of this central socialization mechanism theorized to influence military conduct. This study advances scholarly understanding by providing the first comparative, survey-based examination of combatant socialization to norms of restraint, using surveys and interviews with US Army cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and active duty Army combatants. Additionally, to better understand ‘restraint’ from combatants’ perspective, this study introduces the concept of the ‘combatant’s trilemma’ under which combatants conceptualize civilian protection as part of a costly trade-off with the values of military advantage and force protection. Survey results hold both positive and negative implications for socialization to law of war norms: military socialization can shift combatants’ preferences for battlefield conduct. However, intensive norm socialization may be required to shift combatants’ preferences from force protection to civilian protection norms. Study findings hold significant implications for understanding violence against civilians in conflict and for policies to disseminate civilian protection norms in armed groups worldwide.
“…Branch 2005)-as a symbol of national unity. Military socialization and political education programmes, both within the military and for civilians, helped ensure integrees' and their constituencies' loyalty to the state, built commanders' trust in them, and also created systems of monitoring within the armed forces and in communities (Bell 2016;Kabwegyere 2000;Lewis 2012Lewis , 2020.…”
Military integration seeks to improve counterinsurgency and peacebuilding outcomes by incorporating former rebels into preexisting or new state security forces during or after civil wars. While peacebuilders continue to promote military integration, there is mixed evidence about its effectiveness and the mechanisms through which it affects counterinsurgency and peace duration. One underexplored mechanism is the effect of military integration on intelligence capacity and the information available to security forces. Information is key to successful counterinsurgency and peacebuilding efforts, and I argue that military integration of ex-rebels can improve intelligence capacity by providing gains in knowledge of human and physical geography, access to preexisting social networks and informants, and knowledge of the relative effectiveness of government and rebel tactics. I illustrate these improvements with evidence from conflicts across time and space and brief case narratives from the Philippines, Uganda, and Rwanda. I conclude by discussing policy implications, cases of unsuccessful integration and negative effects on intelligence, and questions for future research on the intelligence aspect of military integration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
