• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Internal Wars: Rethinking Problem and Response

Authored by Dr. Max G. Manwaring.

September 2001

55 Pages

Brief Synopsis

Asymmetric guerrilla war--insurgencies, internal wars, and other small-scale contingencies (SSCs)--are the most pervasive and likely type of conflict in the post-Cold War era. It is almost certain that the United States will become involved directly or indirectly in some of these conflicts. Yet, there appears to be little or no recognition and application of the strategic-level lessons of the Vietnam War and the hundreds of other smaller conflicts that have taken place over the past several years.

The author draws from the lessons of the recent past to better prepare today's civilian and military leaders to meet the unconventional and asymmetric warfare challenges that face the United States and the rest of the international community. This country is in a new global security environment that involves the integration of free markets, technologies, and countries to a degree never before witnessed. It is not easy to understand and respond to the many smaller threats--and benefits--that stem from global integration. Yet, as the country that benefits most from global integration, the United States has a pressing national interest in maintaining and enhancing the new order. By coming to grips analytically with the most salient strategic lessons or rules that dominate contemporary SSCs, political and military leaders can maximize opportunities in the current and future chaos

Summary

The end of the Cold War did not produce an end to internal or regional conflict and the expected peace dividend. Today, over half the countries in the international community are faced with one variation or another of asymmetric small (i.e., guerrilla) wars. Insurgencies, internal wars, and other small-scale contingencies (SSCs) are the most pervasive and likely type of conflict in the new world order. It is almost certain that, sooner or later, the United States will become involved, directly or indirectly, in many of these conflicts. It is also certain that the deplorable experience of Vietnam distorts and blurs American thinking about guerrilla insurgency. As a result, there appears to be little or no recognition and application of the strategic-level lessons of the Vietnam War and the hundreds of other smaller conflicts that have taken place over the past several years.

These lessons are not being lost on the new political actors emerging into the contemporary multi-polar global security arena. Ironically, strategies being developed to protect or further the interests of a number of new players on the international scene are inspired by the dual idea of evading and frustrating superior conventional military force within the global chaos. The better a power such as the United States becomes at the operational level of conventional war, the more a potential opponent turns to asymmetric solutions. Thus, the purpose of this monograph is to draw from the lessons of the recent past to better prepare today’s civilian and military leaders for the unconventional and asymmetric warfare challenges that face the United States and the rest of the global community.

To help leaders come to grips analytically with the most salient strategic lessons and rules that dominate contemporary asymmetry, we do four things. First, we clarify the strategic lessons of Vietnam. These lessons provide a short list of fundamental rules for dealing with contemporary conflict. Second, with this as background, we develop lessons from several other guerrilla wars that have taken place since the end of World War II. The complementary lessons from 69 additional cases demonstrate important “intermediate” rules for playing in the contemporary global security arena. Third, we examine the future of guerrilla war. This examination includes an analysis of the signposts along the road to the 21st century and concludes that the hard-learned lessons of the past remain valid. Finally, we outline two “advanced” structural rules for generating strategic clarity and success in current and future conflict. All this, hopefully, will generate the broad strategic vision necessary to win a war—not just the battles, but the war itself.

The Fundamental Strategic Lessons of Vietnam: Relearning from the Theory and Experience of the Past.

If the lessons of Vietnam teach anything, they teach the need to go back to basics. The fact that the U.S. armed forces were never defeated on the Vietnam battlefield obscures another important fact of that war. Although American forces never lost a battle, in the end it was the Vietcong and their North Vietnamese allies who achieved their strategic objectives and emerged victorious. Americans thought they were fighting a limited war of attrition against a traditional enemy—dressed in black pajamas. The threat the South Vietnamese government and the United States had to deal with was not a limited or a traditional one. Rather, the Vietcong—on another level, and dressed in their comical black pajamas—were making unconventional preparations to take control of the state.

This reality takes us back to where we began. It takes us to the question: “How could the United States have won all the battles in Vietnam, but lose the war?” The answer is straight-forward. American leadership failed to apply the fundamental principles of military theory and grand strategy in that conflict. More specifically:

• The assessment of the nature of the conflict was incorrect.

• The strategic environment within which the war was taking place was misunderstood or ignored.

• The primary centers of gravity were not carefully or continually assessed, prioritized, or considered in nonmilitary (e.g., socio-political) terms.

• There was no appreciation of the centrality of rectitude and moral legitimacy in supporting the counter-guerrilla effort.

• These fundamental principles were not brought together and put into a strategic paradigm through which to understand and conduct the war.

The central unifying theme of these lessons is decisive. The instruments of national power must be organized, trained, and equipped within prescribed budgetary considerations. But, those actions must be preceded with clear, holistic, and logical policy direction—and the structure, roles, missions, and strategy that will ensure the achievement of the political ends established in that policy. This is a fundamental “rule” that is as valid for current and future conflict as it has been in the past.

Lessons from 69 Post-World War II Internal Wars: Intermediate “Rules” for Playing in the Contemporary Global Security Arena.

In the mid-1980s practitioners and academics deemed it important to begin to face the so-called Vietnam syndrome and try to understand the variables that make the difference between wining and losing asymmetric guerrilla wars. The intent was to improve prospects for success in contemporary and future internal conflict situations and to do a better job of protecting and advancing U.S. national interests in the developing global instability. One such effort, never widely publicized, was initiated in 1984 by then Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Maxwell Thurman.

The results of most of the mandated research are available at the National Security Archives in Washington, DC. There is nothing really startling or radical about them. The results suggest basic security strategy and national and international asset management. Importantly, however, the research points out that no successful strategy, on either side of the conflict spectrum, has been formulated over the past 50 years that has not explicitly or implicitly taken into account all the following strategic dimensions—or wars within the general internal war. They are:

• A “legitimacy war” to attack or defend the moral right of an incumbent regime to exist.

• A more traditional police-military “shooting war” between belligerents.

• “Wars” to isolate belligerents from their internal and/or external support.

• A closely related “war to stay the course”—that is, the effort to provide consistent and long-term support to an ally.

• Intelligence and information “wars.”

• “Wars” to unify multilateral, multidimensional, and multi-organizational elements into a single effective effort.

It is important to note that the application of these dynamic elements in a successful grand strategy subsumes a realistic strategic vision and policy that is based on the fundamental principles discussed in the previous section.

The Future of Asymmetric Internal Wars: Some Signposts on the Road Ahead.

Even though prudent armies must prepare for high risk low-probability conventional war, there is a high probability that the President and Congress of the United States will continue to require military participation in small internal guerrilla wars well into the future. These wars will likely have new names, new motives, and new levels of violence that will be a new part of the old problem. Nevertheless, whether they are called “Teapot wars,” “Camouflaged wars,” “Unrestricted wars,” “Operations Other Than War,” or something else, future guerrilla wars can be identified by the lowest common denominator of motive. And, as a corollary, whether they are considered “spiritual insurgencies,” “commercial insurgencies,” or anything else, guerrillas wars are the organized application of violent or nonmilitary coercion or threatened coercion intended to resist, oppose, change, or overthrow an existing government, and to bring about political change.

It is daunting and sometimes overwhelming to think of the implications for guerrillas, or other self-appointed saviors, who might employ nuclear, chemical, biological, electronic, and informational weapons to attain their objectives. Thus, although present and future asymmetric conflicts may have different trappings, it is imperative to remember the lessons of the past. The continuing relevance of relatively recent experience can be seen in ongoing conflicts. That is:

• Moral legitimacy remains the most important principle of the post-World War II era. It can been seen, as examples, in the Kurdish problem in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Russia from at least 1961 to the present; Sierra Leone since 1991; the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria since 1992; and in Chechnya since 1999.

• Appropriate use of military force is still a key element in determining success or failure of counterguerrilla wars. Importantly, the irrelevance of heavy Russian military equipment and conventional training can be seen in the Peruvian effort against the Sendero Luminoso, and in the Ethiopian case.

• The logical need to isolate belligerents from sources of support is obvious in any number of contemporary cases. Two contemporary examples are Colombia and Chechnya. In Colombia, the insurgent alliance formed with narco-traffickers is providing generous financial assistance in return for protection of narcotics operations. In Chechnya—and earlier in Afghanistan—the war against Russian domination would be impossible without substantial outside aid from state and nonstate political actors.

• In this connection, the need to “stay the course” remains constant. Without outside aid and internal support, the Irish Republican Army could not function effectively in Northern Ireland. Likewise, the Middle Eastern Kurds would be unable to carry on their campaigns for national liberation.

• Intelligence and information are more vital than ever to the success or failure of contemporary guerrilla war. Some argue, for example, that the failure of the stability operations in Somalia was due in large part to a failure of the United States and United Nations (U.N.) to develop adequate and timely human intelligence. On the other hand, and as only one example, information campaigns have been key to the success of the Zapatista insurgency in Mexico.

• Unity of Effort is the last principle that will be noted here. Suffice it to say that the many problems of the U.N. operation in the Congo (UNOC), the U.N. operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II), the U.N. operations in the former Yugoslavia, and the NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo stem from a lack of unity of effort among the various players.

As in the past, to the extent that these factors or dimensions are strongly present in any given strategy, they favor success. To the extent that any one is absent, or only present in a weak form, the probability of success is minimal.

Two Advanced Structural “Rules” for Success in the Global Security Arena.

Two characteristics of asymmetric guerrilla threats have been identified as particularly significant. First, defense planners today cannot know precisely what sort of threats will emerge and what types will prove effective. Second, the effectiveness of asymmetric threats that have an impact will sooner or later decline as an enemy adjusts. Some argue that by maximizing conceptual and organizational adaptability and flexibility, the United States can assure that it will rapidly counter emerging asymmetric threats, and speed the process by which a threat becomes insignificant or ineffective. Phrased differently, in a time of strategic fluidity and asymmetry like the current one, the political actor that develops new concepts and concomitant leader judgment—and unifying organizational structure—better and more quickly than an opponent will have a decided advantage.

Given today’s realities, failure to prepare adequately for small war (i.e., guerrilla) contingencies is unconscionable. At a minimum, there are two basic cultural and organizational imperatives. They are:

• Leader Judgment. In that context, there are several fundamental educational and cultural requirements to modify Cold War mind-sets and to develop the leader judgment that is needed to deal effectively with ambiguous, complex, politically dominated, multidimensional, multi-organizational, multinational, and multicultural internal war situations. The study of conventional war has always been considered to be essential preparation for leaders involved in war. The study of “unconventional” asymmetric war is no less essential.

• Unity of Effort. Operations at any level will achieve strategic clarity and maximum effectiveness as a result of integrating both horizontal and vertical planning and implementation processes from the outset. That is, integrating horizontal (i.e., multinational) politicalmilitary planning and operations with vertical national (e.g., U.S. interagency) political-military planning and operations achieves a synergy toward the achievement of an agreed political vision. These are two fundamental organizational mechanisms necessary to help eliminate “strategic ambiguity,” “ad-hoc-ery,” and “mission-creep.”

Conclusions.

These are lessons that should have been learned from the U.S. experience in Vietnam, and the analysis of a large sample of other relatively recent small (i.e., guerrilla) wars. The value of the ideas or “rules” derived from this experience lies in their utility as a conceptual framework within which data from specific situations might be placed and understood. If American and other leaders consider these ideas not as a template, but, with serious intent, they may be able to translate battlefield courage, logistical superiority, and tactical victories into strategic successes in the current and future asymmetric global security arena.

Access Full Report [PDF]: Internal Wars: Rethinking Problem and Response