Broadening the Perspective on Military Cohesion? A Reply

• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20947150
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Anthony King
• Subject Matter: Commentaries

Commentary

Broadening the Perspective

on Military Cohesion?

AReply

Anthony King

1

Abstract

In 2018, Ilmari Ka

¨ihko

¨published a special collection in Armed Forces & Society on

the debate about small unit cohesion. Later, in reaction to a response by Guy

Siebold, he published a further intervention with Peter Hald´

en. Focusing on my 2006

article in the journal and my subsequent debate, Ka

¨ihko

¨has claimed that the

cohesion debate is too narrow. It ignores organizational factors in the armed forces

and wider political factors, including nationalism and state policy. Consequently, it is

incapable of analyzing non-Western state or irregular forces and is only relevant for

the 20th and 21st centuries. This response shows that while Ka

¨ihko

¨’s extension of

the empirical archive to non-Western armed groups is to be welcomed, none of his

theoretical claims are sustainable.

Keywords

small units, cohesion, combat effectiveness, Eurocentricism

Why do soldiers fight? The fact that soldiers have willingly risked and sacrificed

themselves for each other in battle is a remarkable phenomenon. The question of

how the bonds between small groups of soldiers have motivated them to fight and

die for each other has, therefore, been a pertinent topic not only in sociology but

also in history, philosophy, and psychology (Aran, 1974; Arkin & Dobrosky, 1978;

1

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Corresponding Author:

Anthony King, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Email: a.king.9@warwick.ac.uk

Armed Forces & Society

2021, Vol. 47(3) 586-595

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20947150

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs