Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations Graduate Program in International Studies Spring 2016 Culture and Military Effectiveness: How Societal Traits Influence Battle Outcomes Eric Stephen Fowler Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the International Relations Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Fowler, Eric S.. "Culture and Military Effectiveness: How Societal Traits Influence Battle Outcomes" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/ fnbr-nx39 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/6 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTURE AND MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS HOW SOCIETAL TRAITS INFLUENCE BATTLE OUTCOMES by Eric S. Fowler B.A. May 1999, Samford University M.A. May 2007, Norwich University M.A. December 2008, Old Dominion University M.M.A.S. May 2012, U.S. Army Command & General Staff College A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2016 Approved by: Kurt Taylor Gaubatz (Director) David Earnest (Member) Angela O’Mahony (Member) ABSTRACT CULTURE AND MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS HOW SOCIETAL TRAITS INFLUENCE BATTLE OUTCOMES Eric S. Fowler Old Dominion University, 2016 Director: Dr. Kurt Taylor Gaubatz What must states do to ensure victory on the field of battle? Conventional scholarship claims that a number of material and institutional factors significantly affect a nation’s ability to generate military power. Recent studies suggest that other factors, including levels of education, civil-military relations, and western culture also play an important role. This new line of logic is important because these factors tend to be glaringly absent from rigorous concepts of military power. The principle finding of this study is that culture matters and that it matters more than originally thought. Culture is admittedly complex, intangible, and difficult to count, but empirical evidence shows that culture manifests concrete effects in combat, at times determining battlefield outcomes. Culture’s absence from meaningful definitions of military power results in world leaders, military commanders, and learned scholars making important political, operational, and theoretical decisions with only partial information. Put plainly, decision-makers cannot accurately assess the martial capabilities of themselves or others without accounting for culture. Consequently, national leaders likely perceive threats where none exists; ignore threats that truly matter; place great trust in incapable allies, and turn away competent help. Moreover, this ignorance of what truly matters in combat means that much of a state’s potential military capability remains untapped and left to happenstance. iii Copyright, 2016, by Eric S. Fowler, All Rights Reserved. iv This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and children, and to all the souls who gave their lives in the defense of others. “Today is NOT the day we fail!” —E.A. Hanson v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS God is good. This dissertation would not have been possible without the mind and spirit apportioned to me by Him. This research was also made possible through the investment of so much time and effort from family, friends, and colleagues. I must thank my wife, Teresa, for without her this document would not exist. I thank my children for their patience when daddy’s mind (and often body) was somewhere far, far away. My sincerest appreciation goes to Drs. Kurt Taylor Gaubatz, David Earnest, and Angela O’Mahony for mentoring me through this, the longest and loneliest single exercise of my professional academic career. I must also thank Drs. Stephen Biddle, Stephen Long, Michael Beckley, and Robert House for not only conducting remarkable research into this field before me but more specifically for so graciously sharing their data with me upon request. I am grateful to Major General John Ferrari, Drs. Tim Bonds and Meg Harrell, and the entire RAND Corporation Army Arroyo Center leadership for providing the necessary environment to complete this monumental task. In a more formative sense, I thank Dr. Fred Shepherd for instilling in me a love of foreign people and distant lands. I am grateful to Drs. Simon Serfaty, Regina Karp, Steven Yetiv, Paul Harris, Russel Ramsey, Stephen Twing, and Angela Kachuyevski for imparting to me the academic foundation necessary to undertake this research in the first place. I appreciate Dr. Dean Nowowiejski for encouraging me through his example that a Soldier can pursue and achieve his academic passion while still serving his country. Lastly, I must thank Major Evans Hanson for modeling for me what it meant to be a Father, Soldier, Scholar, and Friend. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CENTRAL QUESTION ................................................................................................. 1 PRINCIPAL FINDING .................................................................................................. 3 IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 8 WAY AHEAD ............................................................................................................. 14 II. CONCEPTS OF MILITARY POWER ............................................................................... 17 MATERIAL FACTORS .............................................................................................. 17 INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS..................................................................................... 25 UNIT-LEVEL FACTORS ........................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 35 III. FROM CULTURE TO MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS .................................................... 37 DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE ............................................................................... 37 CULTURE AND MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS ..................................................... 44 CULTURE IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 55 IV. DATA & OPERATIONALIZATION ................................................................................. 56 BIDDLE & LONG DATASETS .................................................................................. 57 BECKLEY DATASET ................................................................................................ 62 CULTURE DATASET ................................................................................................ 63 VARIABLE OPERATIONALIZATION ..................................................................... 69 CHAPTER SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 85 V. STATISTICAL TESTS & FINDINGS ................................................................................ 86 STATISTICAL METHODS ........................................................................................ 87 STATISTICAL TESTS ................................................................................................ 97 SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 136 CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 138 vii Chapter Page VI. TYPICAL CASE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 139 TYPICAL CASE STUDY SELECTION ................................................................... 141 CONVENTIONAL FORCE RATIO (3:1) ................................................................. 142 SUPERIOR FORCE RATIO (>3:1)........................................................................... 154 CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 170 VII. EXCEPTIONAL CASE STUDIES ................................................................................... 172 EXCEPTIONAL CASE STUDY SELECTION ........................................................ 173 EQUIVALENT FORCE RATIO (1:1) ....................................................................... 174 INFERIOR FORCE RATIO (<1:1) ........................................................................... 185 CHAPTER