Review: Mercenaries in Asymmetric Conflicts

Abstract

MERCENARIES IN ASYMMETRIC CONFLICTS Scott Fitzsimmons Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 368 pp., $99.00 cloth ISBN 978-1107026919Why do small mercenary armies sometimes defeat much larger armies in asymmetric wars? This is the question that animates Scott Fitzsimmons's inquiry into the dynamics of mercenary conflicts. Broadly speaking, the answer is that material advantages do not guarantee victory. Organizational strengths inculcated through behavioural norms have significant, and in some cases, decisive effects on the outcomes of asymmetrical conflicts. Mercenaries in Asymmetric Conflicts presents a confrontation between neorealism and social constructivism on the analytical terrain of African civil wars. Fitzsimmons weaves together these two major theories of international relations and four case studies to make a novel contribution to the literature on non-state actors in war.The book's primary theoretical contribution is its assessment of the predictive power of the two theories. Fitzsimmons pits neorealist combat balance theory against a normative theory of military performance drawn from social constructivism. The two theories offer competing predictions about the results of asymmetrical conflicts based on the material capabilities or cultural properties of the relevant combatants. Fitzsimmons then uses these variables to test the explanatory and predictive value of the respective theories. Fitzsimmons comes down in favour of constructivist theorizing, which predicts not only who wins, but also how. He argues that with the right organizational culture, a military force can overcome massive material disadvantages.Fitzsimmons' theory of combat effectiveness treats behavioural norms as an intervening variable that can have transformative effects on military performance. Combat effectiveness turns on six norms: inclination for tactical innovation, decentralized decision-making, personal initiative, free transmission of accurate intelligence, technical proficiency, and group loyalty. Combatants who demonstrate certain cultural norms have a marked advantage over numerically and materially superior opponents. In other words, quality, not quantity, wins the day. Fitzsimmons contrasts the constructivist explanation with the neorealist account, in which the distribution of material capabilities determines outcomes. Combat balance theory fails critically, Fitzsimmons argues, in its assumption that material capabilities will always be used to optimal effect. When material capabilities are not optimized, outcomes confound the neorealist theory, and behavioural norms offer a superior alternative explanation.To develop the normative theory of military effectiveness, Fitzsimmons recounts mercenary performances in four African conflicts: the Simba Rebellion in Zaire of 1963-1965, the Angolan Civil War of 1974-1976, the Angolan Civil War of 1993-1995. and the First Congo War of 1996-1997. With the aid of impressive evidentiary support, including information drawn from interviews with mercenary veterans, Fitzsimmons tests the predictive powers of the competing normative and neorealist theories. In each case, he shows that the interplay of behavioural cultures better accounts for military outcomes than do other factors. Importantly, the interaction of norms and material capabilities is not uniform across the cases. Fitzsimmons wisely recognizes that behavioural norms and material capabilities manifest differently in each conflict. The four cases are selected to display variation of these independent variables. The cases allow Fitzsimmons to explain outcomes when these variables are, to different degrees, present or absent. …