Unit cohesion in the United States military explained

Unit cohesion in the United States military has been the subject of dispute and political debate since World War II as the United States military has expanded the categories of citizens it accepts as servicemembers. Unit cohesion is a military concept, defined by one former United States Chief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress".[1] The concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts, sociologists, and psychologists.[2]

Factors affecting unit cohesion

has identified some factors in unit cohesion:

Race

Prior to US Executive Order 9981, issued on July 26, 1948 by President Harry S. Truman, the American military was segregated. Opponents of racial integration frequently alleged that integrating the armed forces would have detrimental effects on unit cohesion.[3]

Women in combat

Brian Mitchell, in his article "Women Make Poor Soldiers" (excerpted from his 1989 book "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military"), expressed concern that placing women in combat lowers unit cohesion, either due to sexual relationships taking priority over group loyalty, or because men would feel obliged to be more protective of women than other men.[4] Mitchell's view was harshly criticized in a New York Times review, which stated the book was "spoiled by intemperate allegations and a supercilious tone" and lacked sourcing for statements.[5]

Fraternization

Air Force Instruction 36-2909 on Professional and Unprofessional Relationships says:

Sexual orientation

Conservative commentary in the U.S. has taken the view that the service of gays in the military is deleterious to essential components of unit cohesion, such as moral and discipline.[6] Urvashi Vaid, criticizing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1995, called unit cohesion a euphemism for "heterosexual male bonding" and wrote that "the essence of male bonding lay in the forcible suppression of undercurrents of homosexual desire."[7]

Bibliography

External links

Notes and References

  1. "Morale and Cohesion in Military Psychiatry, Fred Manning, p.4 in Military Psychiatry: Preparing in Peace for War, ; Manning cites Meyer, EC, "The unit", Defense, 1982;82(February):1-9
  2. Brian Palmer (2010), "Pentagon Sees Little Risk in Allowing Gay Men and Women to Serve Openly" Slate, Dec. 1, 2010
  3. https://books.google.com/books?id=vnnJYQ4FYasC Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: options and assessment
  4. Web site: According to Mitchell (1991), when women and men work under stressful conditions in close quarters, sexual liaisons may become likely. These liaisons may threaten the stability of military families, disrupt discipline, and distract personnel from the mission.. Looking at G.I. Jane through Lenses of Gender . Sheri Crowley. Rooks.
  5. News: Halloran. Richard. FIGHTING WOMEN. 13 May 2011. New York Times. 3 September 1989.
  6. Web site: Is Wrecking the Finest Military In the World the Price We'll Pay for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'? . North . Oliver . Oliver North . December 3, 2010 . . 2011-08-10 .
  7. Urvashi Vaid, Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation (NY: Doubleday, 1995), 176