The next time you hear some war cheerleader claiming that criticism of the Cheney-Bush war policies will undermine soldiers' morale in the field, this is a good study to remember, Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq War by Leanard Wong, et al. (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute; July 1, 2003)
After World War II, a series of studies emerged that examined the motivation of soldiers during combat - to determine why a "tired, cold, muddy rifleman goes forward with the bitter dryness of fear in his mouth into the mortar bursts and machine-gun fire of a determined enemy." Was it for ideological reasons as suggested by the Why We Fight series? [A series of propaganda films made by Frank Capra for the US Army that was shown to all soldiers. For the most part, they still make good viewing, though they are not entirely free of anti-Japanese racism.]
In his widely acclaimed work, The American Soldier, Samuel Stouffer documented the attitudes of World War II combat infantrymen. When soldiers were asked what kept them going during the war, the most common response was getting the war over so that they could go home. The second most common response and the primary combat motivation, however, referred to the strong group ties that developed during combat. When asked about sources of support during combat, responses concerning loyalty to one’s buddies and the notion "that you couldn’t let the other men down" were second only to the number of combat soldiers who said they were helped by prayer. Despite the Why We Fight films, Stouffer’s study argued that ideology, patriotism, or fighting for the cause were not major factors in combat motivation for World War II soldiers. Cohesion, or the emotional bonds between soldiers, appeared to be the primary factor in combat motivation. (my emphasis)
The study looks specifically at factors affecting combat motivation in the Iraq War. This study was published 07/01/07, so it focuses on the short conventional phase of the war in March-April 2003.
They write:
As the interview progressed, soldiers were asked the same question posed to World War II combat soldiers by Stouffer ... -"Generally, in your combat experience, what was most important to you in making you want to keep going and do as well as you could?" For World War II soldiers, besides ending the task to go home, the most common response was solidarity with one’s comrades. ... For U.S. soldiers in the Iraq War, similar responses were given about going home, but importantly the most frequent response given for combat motivation was "fighting for my buddies." Soldiers answered with comments such as, "In combat, just the fact that if I give up, I am not helping my buddies. That is number one." or "Me and my loader were talking about it, and in combat the only thing that we really worry about is you and your crew." The soldiers were talking about social cohesion - the emotional bonds between soldiers.
Social cohesion appears to serve two roles in combat motivation. First, because of the close ties to other soldiers, it places a burden of responsibility on each soldier to achieve group success and protect the unit from harm. Soldiers feel that although their individual contribution to the group may be small, it is still a critical part of unit success and therefore important. As one soldier put it, "I am the lowest ranking private on the Bradley [fighting vehicle] so I am trying to kind of prove something in a way that I could do things. I did not want to let anyone down."
This desire to contribute to the unit mission comes not from a commitment to the mission, but a social compact with the members of the primary group. ...
The second role of cohesion is to provide the confidence and assurance that someone soldiers could trust was "watching their back." This is not simply trusting in the competence, training, or commitment to the mission of another soldier, but trusting in someone they regarded as closer than a friend who was motivated to look out for their welfare. In the words of one infantryman, "You have got to trust them more than your mother, your father, or girlfriend, or your wife, or anybody. It becomes almost like your guardian angel." (my emphasis)
In other words, actual combat morale depends primarily on immediate organizational factors, the need to hold together in face of the enemy. The idea, which even Bush has been known to push on occasion, that criticism of the war in Congress or among the public is somehow going to sap the fighting morale of troops under fire is a lot of hot air.
The extension of combat tours and other aspects of "overstretch" are more likely to damage fighting morale than someone criticizing The Surge. In any case, many soldiers in Iraq have their own reasons for opposing the current war policy. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that fighting morale is less among soldiers who have political disagreements with the war policy.
I don't want to over-interpret their findings. They also raise some interesting questions about the degree to which more ideological motives motivated the soldiers.
But the critical importance of unit cohesion means that it's nonsense to suggest, as war critics often do, that criticism of the administration's war policies somehow immediately endangers soldiers fighting in the field because, what? They would say, gee, Senator Lugar said he wasn't so happy with the way the war's going so I'm just going to let the bad guys blow my head off today?
Like so much the war cheerleaders say, it's nonsense.
