Low Intensity Conflict: The United States And The Future AUTHOR LCdr. Thomas Bjelica, Argentine Marine Corps CSC 1990 SUBJECT AREA Strategic Issues EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT: THE UNITED STATES AND THE FUTURE. THESIS: The United States will be involved directly or indirectly in the future low intensity conflicts of the third world. ISSUE: The United States is the leader of the Western World because is the most powerful member after the Second World War. This means a responsibility in maintaining the balance of power and the Western values around the world. On the other hand, the main threats to achieve these goals are the Soviet Union revolutionary strategy and the political, social and economical low development of many of the Southern Hemisphere countries. This combination is the source and the frame for solutions of different level of violence. The most of these struggles are included under the broad scope of the low intensity conflict definition. Each conflict must be analyzed taking in account several factors. The low intensity conflict is an old way of fighting. The up date is the special environment of political, social and psychological facts that influence the results of the confrontation. CONCLUSION: Keys of success are to have in mind the different values of other countries and to avoid the temptation for immediate changed. The military solution has many lever of intervention and must be used in mutual support of other resources. Coordination of efforts and single command contribute to necessary unity of effort. To commit American forces would be the last solution. LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT; THE UNITED STATES AND THE FUTURE OUTLINE THESIS STATEMENT: The United States must analyze each conflict taking in account not only its feelings and points of view. To be successful in low intensity conflicts require the simultaneous and combined commitment of political and economical resources supported by military force of different level during all the process. I. Post war era. A. Balance of power. B. Decolonization. C. Western influence in the world. D. Interest in the third southern hemisphere. II. The meaning of low intensity conflict. A. The high intensity conflict. B. The middle intensity conflict. C. The low intensity conflict. D. Factors to define the level of the conflict. III. The United States, conflicts and the future. A. Deterrence in the northern hemisphere. B. Problems in the southern hemisphere. C. Low intensity conflicts in the third world. D. Manifest destiny of the powerful nations. E. The interventionist dilemma. IV. Political and social environment of conflicts in the third world. A. Point of view of the northern countries. B. The other face of the coin. C. Solutions to promote changes. V. The economical problem A. To different views on the same problem. B. The economical tool. VI. The military solution. A. Levels of intervention. B. Patterns of violence. C. Case for success. LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT; THE UNITED STATES AND THE FUTURE The post war era. After the victory against the Axis the United States became the first power between all nations in economical and military power and as a consequence got strong political influence in the world. Great Britain and France, the former more powerful western countries, were exhausted because of the war effort and they realize that American help was the key of their triumph. The Soviet Union couldn't win without American aid, but their effort in war was vital to defeat the German Army with three tools, the terrain, the weather and the Red Army. Thanks to this sacrifice it possible to open the second front. Political agreements gave the Soviets the control of Central Europe and the United States held forward positions in almost all places except those places under communist occupa t ion. The most powerful weapon ever known had only one owner in that time. During many years nobody could match that strength in the same arena. The colonialist European countries came under the pressure of the United Nations to grant freedom and self determination to people who in most cases helped them to achieve the victory during the war. The process of descolonization began in 1946 in the most of the colonies located in Africa and Asia. Some transitions were peaceful, but very often long and bloody struggles preceded independence. As a paradox of history the most enthusiastic starters of decolonization and traditional non colonialist country as the United States became a supporter of colonialist wars trying to avoid or delay independences of third world countries. Neutral in the beginning , the United States was forced to change its position because the environment of the cold war . The help of marxism to the liberation movements was a risk to the strategic balance of power. Revolutionary strategy of the Soviet Union tried to profit by the opportunity of the decolonization process to spread communism ideology around the world. The response, in order to avoid the communist crusade was to establish a security belt of alliances around the Soviet Union and the conflicting areas and give help to friendly governments threatened by liberation movements. The Marshall plan and NATO pact between the most important agreements constituted a net including the former enemies such as Japan and Germany forming a shield against the new threat. But at the same time that the East West confrontation was going on, a social and economical reality was dividing the the developed north hemisphere from the low developed southern hemisphere. Developed countries have vital and secondary interests in the southern hemisphere. Raw materials such as petroleum and minerals needed for strategic industries, choke points for maritime traffic, LOCS for international trade, markets, etc.. Because the fear about consequences of a nuclear confrontation in Europe, the Soviet Union challenged the United States in the south using an indirect maneuver and an indirect strategy, long, but cheap and with very low risk using substitute fighters. These are some of the reasons why the United States a geographical and political isolationist country during the second and the third decade of the century became an interventionist power defending their interest and their allies as the leader of the western world. The meaning of low intensity conflict. From the beginning of the military intervention in the South East Asia new words increased the military terminology in order to qualify a different way to wage wars. Expressions such as non conventional, insurgency, revolutionary war, subversion and finally low intensity conflict were used frequently in the media and by the military studies and analysis. Trying to avoid misunderstandings and mistakes is interesting overview and explain some of these definitions. Almost everybody agrees to define high intensity conflicts as the kind of wars were all the resources of the belligerents are involved in the fighting because the national destiny is at risk depending on the result of the war. Is also very common to think that high intensity conflicts are of course conventional wars like the second world war and today probably with the intervention of nuclear weapons. The classic expensive wars that only the super powers can fight. Similar to total wars. Regional wars with conventional weapons and regular armies involved, respecting laws of war are considered middle intensity conflicts, like Iraq versus Iran. It is believed that a low intensity conflict is a none conventional war, in an insurgency environment with guerrillas forces, sometimes with low level of violence and always in the third world. There are, however, a lot of examples of conventional high intensity wars where non conventional methods were used as a complement of regular armies. Remember the Yugoslavian, Russian, French, Norway and other resistances movements. On the other hand, Ogaden Campaign, Indo Pakistan war and Vietnam began as guerrilla warfare and transformed to middle intensity conflicts in the second phase of the war. Considering the kind of weapons used in each war, too far in this century is believed that nuclear weapons may be only used during "conventional" high intensity conflicts. The level of violence and the quantity of forces employed during current low intensity conflicts change very often, so the kind of weapons used, and a good example is the Vietnam war, low but with high level of violence, with more than half million soldiers only in one of the army involved, using massive strategic bombings with B--52. Sometimes a low level action jumps immediately to a risk of high nuclear confrontation such as the Cuban missile crisis or the Berlin blockade; The Yom Kippur war is also a good example of the risk of escalation. One of the most important factors to analyze a war is to consider what is the risk of vital interests of the stronger country involved in a war. For instance, Vietnam and Korea didn't affect American vital interests in the short time, and the effort of war was partial considering the whole resources of the nation. But at the same time and in the same war, both Koreas and Vietnams were involved in a total war, using all the national resources and betting the destiny of the nation on the result of war. Another point of view is to think about the self constraints and rules of engagement established by the belligerents. The more powerful sometimes restricts the use of all his weapons fearing the reaction of other power indirectly involved. Also the constraint is related to the geographic area of operations in order to avoid the spread of the war. On the other side, the weaker of both belligerents sometimes restrict the use of terrorism, destruction of enemy civilian and vital targets trying to avoid an a unacceptable reprisal putting in risk more than they can achieve with war. Finally the level of war depends often on the reasons why they start. Normally religious, racial and social or ideological conflicts are total wars, long term wars and very violent because they are low rational conflict. Border problems and economic differences are limited efforts where one country tries to obtain something avoiding to lose more than he could win in the conflict. Is a high rational effort. Each case of analysis is different because sometimes wars have mixed reasons and the formal excuse is the surface of others, as the Iraq and Iran war. The United States, conflicts and the future. As far as it is possible to foresee, the only army capable of challenging the United states is the red army in a high intensity conflict nuclear or not. But mutual deterrance still works and probability to happen is low because risk is not rational. Retaliation is always possible after the first strike, and total strategic surprise is not possible to obtain. There is not enough power threat to fight against the United States, but it is possible his intervention in support of a friendly country in a regional conflict against other country that may or may not be supported by another super power. Instead a risk of escalation of this kind of conflict may occur when vital interests are threatened, like the petroleum areas. To commit American forces may be the last step after trying all the below level of pressure and violence. The Northern hemisphere is still covered by military defensive pacts, and deterrance plus the post war agreements about balance of power are working well in order to maintain peace. Border problems are being solved; influence of racial and religious problems are decreasing their importance, economical competence is played in the economical arena, ideology is losing positions in favor of economic realities and way of life is increasing. However, low intensity problems, instead his low influence on life of the northern hemisphere are going on like the IRA in Ireland, the ETA in Spain, Baaden Meinhoff in Germany, the red brigades in Italy and others remaining that violence is still settled in the old world. Then it makes sense to think that most conflicts of the near future will continue in the southern low developed hemisphere, because the environment of social injustice and unequal distribution of richness, illiteracy, religious fanaticism, sick nationalism, border problems, deep ideological differences , political intolerance and marxist revolutionary theories plus the drug problem and undeveloped economies give plenty enough reasons for violent solutions. Very frequently southern conflicts travel to the northern hemisphere area in order to call international attention for a movement in the south, to kill political enemies living in the north as refugees, attack embassies and authorities or to punish a northern country that they believe is the source and guilt of his problems. Drugs, for instance are cultivated in the south and traded in the north because is a better market than the south. Illegal weapons trade has an in verse way. Because of strong influence and wide interests, the United States will be involved directly or indirectly in all these problems. Every problem small or big will have a small or big influence in the world's balance of power. Sometimes the summon of small problems create a big problem in the end when they are linked. The Roman Epire, France, and the Great Britain had in the past the same role as the United States today. To maintain a balance of power and leadership is a manifest destiny for powerful maritime nations. It is neither bad nor good, simply is. In diplomacy the moral dilemma between interventionism and isolationism is always actual. Somebody must do it. Empty places are always filled by somebody. Political and social environment of conflicts in the third world. It would be interesting as a theoretical exercise to imagine the face of the world if the United States would have decided a total withdraw from forward positions overseas after the Second World War. Besides the material interest, the western world believed it had and has the historical task to maintain and extend the influence of its culture philosophy way of life and values. This perhaps good intention was and still is today a very important cause of misunderstanding between very old none western cultures who perceive this influence as a threat to its own values. This process can't be achieved by force. It is and educational effort and a long way comparative show of the benefits of democratic system of life. Also, the new countries in the first steps of their independent lives need time to improve the rules of their society such human rights, elections, justice and so on. For example, don't forget that England, began the improvement of its rights in 1215. In spite of that, Europeans killed Europeans because of religious differences and people persecuted people because of racial differences, in this century in northern developed countries. Namibia has only four months of life. The Communication revolution of the twentieth century is one of the most powerful tool in the intent to change the political face of the world. It is impossible for a dictatorship regime to maintain the illiteracy of the population about benefits of democratic system today. But changes are not easy. Each step in the right way takes a reason for violent solutions. Political and social injustices are one of the best flags for revolutions. Also it is an excellent opportunity for the marxism, offering the magic medicine for the illness in the world. The political problem for the United States is how to promote changes in the way they believe is right and to influence some governments to change wrong policies. The problem is more difficult when this government is a strategic ally. Most of the countries consider political pressure as interference of internal problems. The dilemma is what to do when a legitimate revolution starts. If help is given to the government, the movement goes sometimes to an antiamerican position and the Soviet Union profits from the situation. On the other hand you can't put at risk the credibility of the United States helping violent movements against formal allied governments. Almost always middle class members are the point of the spear of changes and influence them with the American and western way of thinking. Good intelligence analysis is the only way to understand the political situation of each case. The analysis must be flexible and try to understand and respect other cultures and values. Silent diplomacy is one of the best tools to expand influence politically in the world. Clear and constant rules are necessary for success in international relations. The best way to make a mistake is to believe that the world can be changed now. All permanent change is slow. The economical problem. Economical environment has a double axis of analysis. Ideology is the first and geography the other in symmetry with the east-west and south-north conflicts. One of the most important differences between socialist and capitalists worlds is the point of view and solutions about economical problems. Of course economy, policy and social issues go very close as a philosophy of life. The majority of the northern countries have development and prosperity under the capitalism system and free market. But the feeling in the southern countries is very different. They believe that prosperity of the north was obtained because of the colonial status in the past let them do an unequal and unjust trade in their benefit. Today external debt in benefit of developed countries is the explanation of poorness, economical delay and social problems in the mouth of all the revolutionary leaders. But economic aid to countries with corrupt governments is not the solution to obtain loyalty for the western side. Very frequently, money doesn't go to develop weak economies or improve the life of people because leaders waste the money and in fact they love the American money more than the American efforts to make a better world. In the same way as the political and diplomatic tools, economical aid is a powerful weapon to reward and punish in order to achieve political goals. Under the economic point of view, if you help somebody develop his economy instead of fill his gaps, you get other customers for trading for the benefit of both. Poor countries can't buy anything. The main question is about the convenience or not to help a non democratic or corrupt government under an insurgency attack when this government is an American ally. The answer is not easy because money buys time and sometimes time is needed for strategic reasons trying to change disadvantage situations. The military solution. Though the military solution may be the last solution when all the other resources fail, it is not absolutely true. Sometimes the success of the other tools depends on how to use the military power to reinforce the other policies. Nobody listens too carefully to weak governments and it is possible to be weak in two ways, weakness of will and weakness of force. After the Vietnam experience the post war syndrome can affect the American will because of the fear of public opinion against intervention in conflicts. Government should take in account that the best way to gain the battle of public opinion at home and overseas is to take the flag of the just causes. The Lybian case is a good example showing the black and the white position in the broad gray situations in the world. The media tool is one of the best ways to present the truth if you know how to use it. False positions come back against you at the end. The second kind of weakness can be avoided having or developing the right weapons for each problem. Nuclear missiles are not useful in insurgency wars. Levels of military use in support of external policy increases from: Military training in U.S. schools Military supply Military advice and training in the country Show of force Technical, intelligence and logistic aid Deployment of forces Security operations of U.S. property Rescue of hostages Special operations Partial intervention of forces Massive intervention in the fight In an offensive role, advise and support to freedom fighters is a very impressive message of the American will. Something like the change of the tide. Enemy threats in the low intensity conflicts combine: Riots Desestabilization Terrorism Rural and urbane guerrillas Insurgency with or without external aid Hostages Conventional or and non conventional aggression across the borders Success in the battlefield is not crucial for insurgency success because the dual nature of the war combining the political front with the military effort while supporting the battle for hearts and minds Low intensity conflict in the insurgency style is almost as old as the world and the preferred way for the weak to fight against the powerful. It is well known that when these wars have popular support neither massive intervention nor terror rule are the best ways of success in the long term. Moral legitimacy is one of the best weapon in the hands of the legal government to manage the will of the population against the insurrection. Tempo for needed political and economical changes is vital for survival of the system under an attack of insurgency. Often, unjust governments used the communist threat as an excuse for domestic restrictions of freedom and for the United States help in money and later as the dominant partner showing the face in their place. Each case of low intensity conflict is exclusive and only political, diplomatic, economical, psychological and military efforts working together at the same time under the same command and control have a chance for success. BIBLIOGRAPHY KENNEDY, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York. Random House Inc. 1987. KLARE, Michael and KORNBLUH, PETER. Low intensity warfare. New York. Pantheon 1988. KIRKPATRICK Jane. Security of the United States and Latin America. Interamerican Defense School 1982. KISSINGER, Henry. Memorias. Buenos Aires, Plaza Janes 1977. FURR, William F. L. Col. USAF. Low intensity conflicts imperatives for success. Army-Air Force center for L.I.C. 1987. DREW, Dennis. Colonel USAF. Insurgency and Counterinsurgency. Air University Press 1988.
