Türk Ordusunda Küçük Birlik Uyumu: Lider, Görev ve Kültürel Değerler

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 19 - 41, 30.04.2024

Barış Ateş , Mustafa Yücehan Akal

https://doi.org/10.52792/tws.1451436

Öz

Bu makalede Türk Ordusunda küçük birlik uyumunun hangi faktörler sonucunda ortaya çıktığı incelenmektedir. Türkiye’de bu konuda daha önce yapılmış bir çalışma tespit edilememiştir. Dolayısıyla bu konudaki veri toplama güçlüğü ve konuya dair akademik alt yapı eksikliği araştırmayı metodolojik açıdan sınırlamaktadır. Ancak nitel araştırma deseninden faydalanarak araştırmada hem farklı bölükleri temsil eden katılımcılarla yapılan derinlemesine görüşmeler hem de alana ilişkin olarak yazarların yakın gözlem ve notları kullanılarak bu sınırlılık aşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Ayrıca Türkçe literatüre sağlıklı bir başlangıç yapabilmek adına geniş bir literatür taraması ile kavramların tartışması yapılmıştır. 1980’ler ve 1990’larda farklı bölge ve şartlarda görev yapmış iki tip bölük üzerinde yapılan çalışma neticesinde Türk Ordusunda küçük birlik uyumunun liderlik, görevin önemi ve askerliğe atfedilen kutsal değerlerden etkilendiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu üç faktörden askerliğe atfedilen önem yaygın bir kültürel değer olarak genellemeye açık olduğundan dolayı askerî uyum seviyesi yüksek birlikler yaratmak için liderlik ve görevin öneminin baskın faktörler olduğu ancak bu ikisi arasında da liderliğin belirleyici olduğu değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Askerî uyum, Türk Ordusu, Küçük birlik, Bölük Komutanı, Askerî kültür

Small Unit Cohesion in the Turkish Army: Leader, Mission and Cultural Values

Öz

This article examines factors contributing to small unit cohesion in the Turkish Army. No previous study on this subject has been identified in the Turkish literature. Thus, the research is methodologically limited by the challenges in data collection and the absence of academic expertise on the subject. To address this restriction, a qualitative study design was employed, involving in-depth interviews with participants from two different companies, as well as authors’ detailed field observations and note-taking. In addition, a broad literature review and discussion of concepts were conducted to make a healthy start to the Turkish literature. As a result of the study conducted on two types of companies that served in different regions and conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, it was concluded that small unit cohesion in the Turkish Army is influenced by leadership, the importance of the mission, and the sacred values attributed to military service. Among these three factors, leadership and the significance of the mission are considered to be the primary factors in forming highly cohesive military units, with leadership being the decisive factor between the two, as the importance of military service is seen as a broadly accepted cultural value.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Military cohesion, Turkish Army, Small unit, Company commander, Military culture

Kaynakça

• Alpkartal, Nureddin Fuat. Silahlı Kuvvetlerde Moral. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1951.
• Arıkan, Baha. Komutanlığın Psikolojisi. İstanbul: Bozkurt Kütüphanesi, 1941.
• Arıkan, Baha. Ordu Psikolojisi. İstanbul: Anıl Yayınevi, 1960.
• Ateş, Barış. “Askerî Yenilik ve Türk Toplumu: Kahramanlık Sonrası Savaşa Doğru mu?”, Türkiye’de Askerî Yenilik: Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönem Üzerine Bir İnceleme içinde, ed. B. Ateş, İstanbul: Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları, 2023, 289-314.
• Ateş, Barış. “Kemal Tahir’in Savaşçı Subayları ve Ordu Anlayışı Üzerine Bir Tahlil”, içinde: Yeni Perspektifler Işığında Kemal Tahir ed. Ayşen Şatıroğlu. İstanbul: Ketebe, 2024, 137-158.
• Ateş, Barış. Askerî Sosyoloji: Ordu ve Toplum Araştırmaları. İstanbul: Selenge Yayınları, 2022.
• Bartov, Omer. “The conduct of war: Soldiers and the barbarization of warfare”, Journal of Modern History, 64 (1992): 32-45.
• Ben-Shalom, Uzi. Zeey, Lehrer. Ben-Ari, Eval. “Cohesion during military operations: A field study on combat units in the Al-Aqsa Intifada”, Armed Forces & Society 32, no:1 (2005): 63-79.
• Bröckling, Ulrich. Disiplin - Askerî İtaat Üretiminin Sosyolojisi ve Tarihi, çev. Veysel Atayman, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2008.
• Chodoff, Elliot P. “Ideology and Primary Groups”, Armed Forces & Society 9, no:4 (1983): 569-593.
• Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. çev. Michael Howard, Peter Paret. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1993.
• Cooley, Horton Charles. Social Organization: A Study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909.
• Coser, A., Lewis. Functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press, 1956.
• Cota, A., Albert. Dion, L., Kenneth. Evans, R., Charles, Kilik, Lindy, Longman, R. Stewart. “The structure of group cohesion”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, no.6 (1995): 572-580.
• Department of the Army. Training, developing, and maintaining unit cohesion. Washington, 1982.
• Fowler, G., John. “Combat cohesion in Vietnam”, Military Review, 59, no:12 (1979): 22—32.
• Gal, Reuven. “Courage under stress” içinde: Bretniz S. (der.), Stress in Israel. New York: Rheinhold, 1983: 65-91.
• Gal, Reuven. Unit morale: From a theoretical puzzle to an empirical illustration—An Israeli example, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, no:6 (1986): 549–564.
• Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1984.
• Goodracre, M., Daniel. “Group characteristics of good and poor performing combat units”, Sociometry 16, 1953.
• Griffith, E. James. “The measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 9, no:2 (1988): 149-171.
• Gross, Neal ve William, E. Martin. “On group cohesiveness” American Journal of Sociology 57, no: 6 (1952): 546-564.
• Hakkı, İbrahim. Harp Gücü ve Moral Güçler. İstanbul: Necmi İstikbal Matbaası, 1934.
• Hart, Liddell. Strategy. Londra: Fabel and Fabel, 1954.
• Henderson, D. William. Cohesion: The human element in combat. National Defence University Press: Washington, 1985.
• Hogg, Michael. The social psychology of group cohesiveness. New York: New York University Press, 1992.
• Jones, John H. vd. Cohesion in the US Military. Washington DC: National Defense University Press, 1984.
• King, Anthony. “The Word of Command: Communication and Cohesion in the Military,” Armed Forces & Society 32, no:4 (2006): 493-512.
• King, Anthony. The combat soldier: Infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013.
• Kirke, Charles. “Group cohesion, culture, and practice.” Armed Forces & Society 35, no:4 (2009): 745-753.
• Kirkland, L., Faris. Leading in COHORT companies, Walter Reed Army Institute, New York, 1987.
• Konijnendijk, Roel. “The Eager Amateur: Unit Cohesion and the Athenian Hoplite Phalanx” içinde: Joshua R. Hall, Louis Rawlings, Geoff Lee (der.), Unit Cohesion and Warfare in the Ancient World, New York: Routledge, 2023.
• Little, W., Roger. “Buddy relations and combat performance” içinde: Janowitz, Morris, (der.) The New Military. Bevery Hills: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964: 195-224.
• Lott, J., Albert., Lott, E., Bernice. “Group Cohesiveness as interpersonel attraction”, Psychological Bulletin 64, no:4 (1965): 259-309.
• Malešević, Siniša. “Warfare and group solidarity: From Ibn Khaldun to Ernest Gellner and beyond”, Filozofija i društvo 32, no:3 (2021): 389-406.
• Malešević, Siniša. Why humans fight: The social dynamics of close range violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2022.
• Manning, Frederick. “Morale, Cohesion and Esprit de Corps”, içinde: Reuven, Gal, Mangelsdorff A., (der.), Handbook of military psychology. New York: Wiley, 1991.
• Marlowe, H., David. Cohesion, anticipated breakdown, and endurance in battle: Considerations for severe and high intensity battle, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research: Washington, 1988.
• Marshall, Samuel Lyman Atwood. Men against fire: The problem of battle command. University of Oklahoma Press: Oklahoma, 2000.
• Meyer, Peter. Kriegs-und Militärsoziologie. Goldmann: München, 1977.
• Moskos, C., Charles. “The American combat soldier in Vietnam”, Journal of Social Issues 31, no:4 (1975): 25-37.
• Moskos, C., Charles. “The sociology of combat.” The Greek Review of Social Research (1972): 9-19.
• Oetting, W. Dirk. Motivasyon Muharebe Değeri: Askerin Savaştaki Davranış Tarzları, Çev., Erol Uğur. Kastaş Yayınevi: İstanbul, 2015.
• Oliver, Laurel W., Joan Harman, Elizabeth, Hoover., Stephanie, M., Hayes., Nancy, A., Pandhi. “A Qualitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature”, Military Psychology 1, no:1 (1999):57-83.
• Renner, A., John. “The changing patterns of psychiatric problems in Vietnam”, Comprehensive Psychiatry 14, (1973): 169-182.
• Salo, Mikael. Guy, L., Siebold. “Variables impacting peer group cohesion in the Finnish conscript service.” Journal of Political & Military Sociology 36, no:1 (2008): 1-18.
• Sekunda, Nicholas. Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000.
• Shills, A. Edward., Janowitz, Morris. “Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II”, The Public Opinion Quarterly 122, no:2 (1948): 280-315
• Siebold L, Guy., Kelly, R., Dennis. Development of platoon cohesion index, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Alexandria, 1988.
• Siebold L. Guy. “The Essence of Military Group Cohesion”, Armed forces & society 33, no:2 (2007): 286-295.
• Siebold, L., Guy. “Key questions and challenges to standard model of military group cohesion”, Armed Forces & Society 37, no:3 (2011): 448-468.
• Siebold, L., Guy. “The evolution of the measurement of cohesion”, Military Psychology 11, no:5 (1995): 5-26.
• Solomon, Zahava., Mıkulincer, Mario., Hobfoll, Stevan. Effect of Social Support and Battle Intensity on Loneliness and Breakdown during Combat, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, no:6 (1986): 1269-1276.
• Stein, A., Arthur. “Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature”, Social Forces 20, no:1 (1976): 143-172.
• Steiner, Meir., Neumann, Micha. “Traumatic neurosis and social support in the Yom Kippur War returnees”, Military Medicine 143, (1978): 866-868.
• Stouffer, A., Samuel ve diğ. The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life, Studies in Social Psychology in World War. New York: Science Editions: 1965.
• Strachan, Hew. “Training, morale and modern war”, Journal of Contemporary History 41, no:2 (2006): 211–227.
• Tabak, Akif., Bedii, Çelik., İşleyen, Volkan. Genç Subayın Liderlik Kitabı. Ankara: Kara Kuvvetleri Basımevi, 2008.
• Türkmen, Ahmet Faik. Askerliğin Psikolojisi. İstanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitapevi, 1933.
• Türkmen, Ahmet Faik. Manevi Silah Moral. Ankara: Medeniyet Matbaası, 1959.
• Yiğitgüden, Remzi. Askerlik Psikolojisi. Ankara: Genelkurmay Matbaası, 1941.
• Zazanis, M., Michelle, Zaccaro, J., Stephen, Kilcullen, N., Robert., “Identifying motivation and interpersonel performance using peer evaluations”, Military Psychology 13, no:2 (2001): 73-88.