The myth of intrinsic combat motivation

Abstract

In military studies, the most contentious arguments about human resources are associated with combat motivations. The trouble with the existing literature is that two distrinctions are routinely ignored: the distinction between combat motivation and the motivation to serve; and the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. A review within the terms of these distinctions suggests that the literature, particularly the American literature, exaggerates intrinsic motivations. Motivations to serve, which are intrinsic, are not completely transitive with combat motivations, which are largely extrinsic. An emphasis on intrinsic motivations can even be counter-productive, encourageing, at best, myopia and, at worst, atrocities.