Gentlemen,
It appears I missed this conversation by two years, but I saw an article in NYtimes recently that I thought was relevant to the initial question in this thread.
My interpretation of the underlying issue from the start of this thread was if changes in the administration alters Special Forces motivation to complete its job - I would presume the explicit answer is no based on responses. I think a deeper question on this topic is if members of the military should not only have reasons for joining SF, but if they should also be informed on the reasoning behind operations and specific wars. A multitude of studies and experiments conducted to improve knowledge of organizational behavior, including from former professors and friends of mine at the University of Michigan, have found that organizations that take the time to explain the purposes of each employee's job within the context of a larger organization's mission, along with sometimes illustrating the outcomes of the organization's work, makes employees significantly more productive, both in terms of bang for buck and bang for time. (some studies have found increases reaching 50% boosts without any changes in pay)
This brings me to the article. John McCain's dissertation at the Army War College after Vietnam, according to the NYtimes, argues that the army should teach the reasons for specific wars/interventions to its soldiers - he alleged this would reduce the number of soldiers breaking under torture. Beyond the more obvious concerns - political indoctrination, politics mixing with military, emphasis on motivation being political rather than service oriented - I think it's an idea worth entertaining for this specific thread, as presidential priorities change with administration. For example, an interesting question is will motivation to complete missions in Iraq be impacted if a president opposed to the war is elected?
Moving the thought from inputs and outputs to outcomes, is it conceivable the civil-military effort in Iraq will be negatively impacted simply by having a president known for being against the intervention, even without yet changing a single policy? Would teaching soldiers the reasoning behind OIF offset that potential outcome? If that reasoning differed - for example, from a liberal/democrat perspective vs. a republican perspective, would the outcome differ, or would simply a reasonable explanation, regardless of its actual material, improve productivity or effectiveness? And if so, would these issues be simply constrained to conventional army, or would they stretch into Special Forces as well?
Sorry in advance if I have become too theoretical for this forum, but this thought process might keep me up late tonight, and I thought it might be conceivable there would be others seeking to discuss this topic as well.
The article on his dissertation is at the bottom, and its title is In ’74 Thesis, the Seeds of McCain’s War Views, released June 15, 2008 (the link will probably break in several months).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us...xA0NcvFDc+Mi4Q