Why they fight? Reconsidering the role of motivation in combat environments

The current combat motivation model based on primary group thesis assumes that the main force behind motivation is peer-bonding or otherwise known as unit cohesion. Cohesion is perceived as an all-encompassing factor that leads to satisfactory (or unsatisfactory in lack thereof) military effectiveness and performance in conflict environments. However, the article identifies three main problems with this perspective: 1. mono-dimensional view of motivation; 2. motivation based on heteronomy, and 3. self-reporting bias. The current model does not consider motivation as a separate entity from cohesion; it does not place motivation as fundamental human value; lastly, it takes motivation as granted by-product of socialization. The article proposes a new combat motivation model based on The Self-Determination Theory. The theory maintains that human motivation requires satisfaction of three psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The degree of satisfaction of those three needs leads to different types of regulated motivations – a continuum from intrinsic to extrinsic – each of which has specifiable consequences for learning, performance, and well-being of an individual.     

Fighting a Just War in the Midst of an Unreasonable International Strife: World War I and the Collapse of the Central European System of the Triple Imperial Dominion

ABSTRACT

This article constitutes an attempt to demonstrate the complexity of factors affecting the legitimate acquisition and reasonable exercise by a political community of the right to war as specified in the just war criteria of jus ad bellum. To achieve this purpose, a brief analysis is presented of the intentional participation in World War I of thousands of Polish volunteers forming military units deployed by the Central Powers on the Austrian-Russian front. Considered in light of the standard principles of just war, the military enterprise of the Polish Legions, as they were called, turns out to be a paradoxical instance of warfare which, while being part of a state-to-state aggression, must be deemed compliant with all the principles in question. As a means of explaining this paradox, a modification of the concept of justified intervention is proposed, embracing military efforts aimed at the ultimate defeat of all the (unjustly) warring parties operating within a given territory. In consonance with the classic just war approach, it is also argued that the justification for such an intervention is essentially dependent on its being initiated by, or attributable to, an unquestionable state agent acting in defence of the state’s basic prerogatives.     

Rethinking strategic culture: A computational (social science) discursive-institutionalist approach

ABSTRACT

The strategic culture approach has been suffering from a prolonged theoretical stalemate, despite a surge in case studies, which culminated in the Johnston-Gray debate and subsequent schism. The present paper outlines a new approach designed to overcome this deadlock, and consists of three arguments. First, the three previous generations of strategic culture studies have failed to explain how strategic culture influences behaviour. Second, aligning strategic culture theory-building with discursive institutionalism offers a way to overcome this fundamental fallacy. Third, a research programme for strategic culture should draw on computational social science to enable it to present and test middle-range theories.