In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

113 8 The Sociology and Psychology of Contemporary Urban Warfare To briefly recapitulate the wider argument of this book, the social scienti fic study of the military has, on the whole, adopted the traditional doctrinal view of modern, conventional war and warfare and consequently has developed concepts suited to what we call textbook units. This view, to put it somewhat simply but not inaccurately, centered on large formations of infantry and armor engaged in combat over open territories marked by the relative absence of civilians. Much of the psychological and sociological study of the military came of age after the Second World War, and thus it is not surprising that many central concepts—cohesion, leadership, interpersonal communication, small group behavior—have been derived from such contexts. In this chapter, we suggest a new look at these concepts by focusing on the empirical reality of urban warfare. We do so both in order to ascertain the degree to which existing concepts fit this reality and to suggest a number of new conceptual frameworks for analysis. What kind of interpretation would current social scientific analyses of the military offer in regard to urban combat? Our suggestion is that such analyses would treat the social and organizational dynamics of urban combat primarily in terms of a “loss” of existing mechanisms for the effective functioning of soldiers and units, primarily because of the added strains and difficulties of urban warfare. Thus urban fighting would be characterized as leading to a deficit of control, a lack of cohesion, unwieldy communication, and problematic leadership. This kind of “negative” interpretation is the outcrop of this kind of analysis, based on the idea of combat taking place between regular armies in open terrains. From this perspective, urban environments simply present added pressures, additional friction. Given that armies are built to withstand and to be able to function in highly uncertain environments 114 Rethinking Contemporary Warfare full of danger and violence, in urban contexts, according to this logic, existing social and organizational dynamics are under more strain. Steed’s (2003, 312, n. 4) not untypical conclusion provides a good indicator of this kind of thinking. According to him, urban warfare demands a great deal more of fighting soldiers and officers: higher levels of mental agility and psychological resilience, and the experience of more physical and emotional stress, as soldiers fight in a degree of isolation far more psychologically demanding than in past wars. Griffith (2000, 116) predicts that future wars will be marked by “escalating stress” based on the model, found in much of the psychological literature on combat, of stressors and counter-stressors. It is not surprising that he cites street fighting as the one thing that deters or worries contemporary Western planners as the Americans (Griffith 2000, 119). His solution to the increasing strains involves intangibles such as unit cohesion, leadership, and fighting spirit. Thus, for example, he thoughtfully suggests that in the future the lowest organizational level in frontline detachments—the irreducible unit of combat (Griffith 2000, 114)—will not be the one-man bionic warrior but the small team of two, three, or four buddies. Yet his analysis raises further sociological questions. While we do not, of course, deny the crucial importance of such matters at the tactical level, we do, however, ask if there are other concepts that may better capture the peculiar social and organizational dynamics that emerge in urban combat. In general, we argue that present-day urban combat necessitates developing two modes of organizational structures and action. The first involves elements similar to those found among special forces: autonomy and independent actions of small groups, leadership that has devolved to the squad and fire-team levels, and the ability to flexibly move from one mission to another. To use a rather unwieldy term, we cautiously propose that in urban contexts military units undergo a process of “special forcification.” The second mode centers on unique abilities to handle the complexity of combat in civilian surroundings. We contend that civilian dimensions of actions in cities should not be seen as somehow ancillary, supplemental to military work, but as part and parcel of the ways in which the armed forces act in contemporary conflicts. Dispersion, Communication, and Cohesion Our starting point is that deployment within cities implies the constant dispersion of forces: sociologically, cities individualize and compartmentalize military forces. To put this point picturesquely, in the movie Blackhawk Down, when disembarking from vehicles to...

Share