Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC

Abstract

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.

The moral foundations of restraint: Partisanship, military training, and norms of civilian protection

“…12 See, for example, Kahl (2007). 13 This survey was designed and carried out by Andrew M Bell (see Bell, 2021). 14 New US Army officers are also commissioned primarily through the US Military Academy and the Officer Candidate School.…”

“…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. 8 To understand the roots of these choices, we build on the concept of 'the combatant's trilemma', which specifies that combatants must trade off among three main priorities in warfare: (1) achieving military objectives ('military advantage'); (2) protecting military peers ('force protection'); and (3) respecting civilian lives ('civilian protection') (Bell, 2020(Bell, , 2021. 9 The premise of the combatant's trilemma is that while all three priorities are important, combatants may sometimes have no choice but to trade off between protecting civilians and other aims.…”

“…16 Universities were: Brigham Young University, Duke University, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Georgetown University, George Mason University, Howard University, Iowa State University, Johns Hopkins University, Liberty University, University of Maryland, University of Mississippi, and University of Virginia. 17 Bell (2021). As outlined by Army Doctrine Reference Paper 1, the Army Ethic is based on multiple sources: the Army Values, including 'honor', 'integrity', and 'respect for others'; the law of armed conflict, which emphasizes the core principles of military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity; the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes murder and assault; and the Army's 'Soldier's Rules', which distill these requirements into simple battlefield precepts.…”

“…The US military has historically gone to great lengths to incorporate norms of civilian protection – also known as ‘norms of restraint’ – into its doctrine, training, and combat operations (Bell, 2021; Department of the Army, 2013; Department of Defense, 2019, 2020; Kahl, 2006, 2007). 1 Yet the apparent willingness of many Republican politicians to endorse the targeting of civilians as the basis of a partisan appeal suggests that this norm is not universally shared (Sagan & Valentino, 2017, 2018).…”

“… 17 Bell (2021). As outlined by Army Doctrine Reference Paper 1, the Army Ethic is based on multiple sources: the Army Values, including ‘honor’, ‘integrity’, and ‘respect for others’; the law of armed conflict, which emphasizes the core principles of military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity; the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes murder and assault; and the Army’s ‘Soldier’s Rules’, which distill these requirements into simple battlefield precepts.…”