Abstract
While the idea is controversial, it is quite possible that, at
least under certain circumstances, the fighting effectiveness of a
conscript army can equal that of a professional army. For any army,
fighting effectiveness is not only influenced by the degree of
psychological cohesion among soldiers and officers, but also by the
organizational culture of each particular service unit towards the
preparation for war and the waging of the conflict itself. The
Malvinas (Falklands) War of 1982 demonstrates this very well. In
this war, two different types of armies confronted one another: the
British army, a professional and all volunteer force, and the
Argentine army constituted principally of conscripted soldiers. In
this regard, some analysts assert that the British concept was
vindicated when a force of British professional soldiers defeated
an opposing Argentine force of draftees twice as numerous. Analysts
in general have rated the capabilities of the Argentine land forces
as poor, although there were exceptions and some units performed
very well. These cases deserve to be studied. Notably, the most
effective Argentine effort came from some small Army units and one
Navy unit, the 5th Marine Battalion. For these units, two primary
reasons account for the differences in fighting performance. First,
small Army groups fought well because there was cohesion among
their components, conscripts, noncommissioned officers, and junior
officers, especially by the attitude of the latter. Secondly, in
the case of the Marine battalion, its performance was the product
not only of good training, but also of the different institutional
approach to waging war that the Argentine Navy employed. These, in
turn, improved cohesion. By focusing upon these units and their
effectiveness, a rather new picture of the Malvinas War comes to
light that differs quite substantially from those drawn in the
immediate aftermath of the war itself. It should also make us
rethink the "lessons" of the war, including those that surround the
professionals versus conscripts controversy.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html
