Motivating soldiers: the example of the Israeli defense forces

Parameters, Autumn, 2004 by Sergio Catignani

As early as 400 BCE, Xenophon had stated that "not numbers or strength bring victory in war; but whichever army goes into battle stronger in soul, their enemies generally cannot withstand them." (1) A strong soul, in modern times, is equivalent to high combat motivation. Likewise, combat motivation's centrality to a successful outcome in military operations, from patrolling to full-scale wars, cannot be overstated. Given the historical asymmetry of forces between Israel and its enemies, the way in which Israel has managed to parry significant conventional and nonconventional attacks-often in the face of substantial quantitative inferiority--has been due mostly to its superior qualitative edge based on its armed forces' professionalism, superior training methods, and combat morale.

Combat motivation is a key factor in enabling conventional armies to win conflicts; in Israel's case, it has been "referred to as the' secret weapon' of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)." (2) On numerous occasions, quantitatively inferior armies have been able to have the upper hand because of their fighting spirit, aggressiveness, and relatively buoyant high morale. Indeed, research has demonstrated time after time that there is a "strong relationship between cohesion, soldiers' level of morale, and combat efficiency." (13)

This article looks at the key factors that can enhance the combat motivation of soldiers. Given the IDF's many operational successes throughout its 56 years of existence, the article provides particular historical references to the IDF's experiences in building and maintaining high levels of combat motivation throughout its combat arms. It also will point to recent negative trends that have weakened in part the IDF soldier's combat motivation. Its purpose is to instill in the reader an appreciation of the necessity for armed forces to continually focus on and build upon the human element of battle in spite of the technological developments brought about over the last decade by the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs.

Such a focus is especially imperative for the US armed forces, as well as for other modern Western armies, where the search for technological solutions often has been pursued at the expense of personnel. The need to focus on the human element of battle is also due to the increasing probability that most armies will be involved in urban warfare battlegrounds, where the technological edge of conventional armies is significantly reduced by the complex terrain and human elements involved within it.

However, in spite of the fact that combat motivation is such a key ingredient to winning battles, most military and academic establishments have found quite some difficulty in measuring and regarding combat motivation when, for example, analyzing an army's overall power capabilities or when giving a threat assessment of an army's enemies. Their problem often has been the labelling of intangibles--such as combat motivation--correctly, because "an idea that is not observable and measurable (strength of will) is hard to compare against one that is (physical strength)." (4) Yet, if "war is ... an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will," (5) as Clausewitz wrote, then it is important to take account of an army's combat morale, because "will" in the context of a battlefield can be equated to combat motivation. This shall principally be the case on the future battlefield where, as argued by numerous military analysts, "the focus of decision and control will shift downward toward the squad and the platoon." (6)

Furthermore, despite all the technological advances in warfare and the continuous debate on the extent to which there has been a revolution in military affairs, the nature of man has not changed. Regardless of the vast technological advances that warfare will undergo, its conduct always will be in the hands of human beings. "This means that individual actions, human imperfections, performance thresholds, and varying personalities will still influence and determine a conflict's outcome." (7)

As Ardant du Picq argued, "The human heart in the supreme moment of battle is the basic factor." (8) Thus it is important to look at the human element of the battlefield, particularly combat motivation and morale. Indeed, taking account of the human element is even more compelling in the future battlefield, which in the author's opinion will be for the most part the urban arena. There, because "a battlefield filled with buildings, tight streets, underground tunnels, and the other obstacles of a built-up area takes away the range of many of today's most highly developed weapon systems," (9) the importance of the individual soldier's initiative and capabilities will be magnified.

Defining Combat Motivation

What is meant by morale in the military context? Among the numerous definitions of morale, the one provided by John Baynes offers a good starting point. He defines morale as "the enthusiasm and persistence with which a member of a group engages in the prescribed activities of that group." (10) In the military milieu, "morale" and "motivation" are frequently used interchangeably. However, morale highlights the condition of the group (or the unit), while motivation describes principally the attribute of an individual. (11)