Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Low intensity conflict

 
US Military History Companion: Low‐Intensity Conflict

(LIC is the Pentagon acronym) refers to a level of hostilities or use of military power that falls short of a full‐scale conventional or general war. It includes peacekeeping, antiterrorism, assistance to foreign countries for internal defense, fulfillment of international treaty obligations, assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies, and commando operations.

Interest in LIC began in the years after the Vietnam War. In the immediate post‐Vietnam era, events overseas made it very clear that U.S. military power remained essential diplomatic currency. Major regional wars in Central Asia and the Mideast served as grim reminders that diplomacy alone could not stop potentially dangerous conflicts. The Arab oil embargo of 1973 emphasized the importance of the Persian Gulf to the economic existence of the industrial West. Washington watched with anxiety as Cuban troops moved into Angola and Mozambique, raising the possibility of major conflict between Soviet‐backed Havana and Pretoria. The dramatic rise in terrorism during the 1970s, much of it supported by hostile nations, posed a new challenge to the United States.

As these events unfolded, the Pentagon, regardless of the lingering effects of the Vietnam trauma, realized it was very likely that a limited use of military power would again be needed to support American foreign policy objectives.

In the late 1970s, when defense budgets began to climb again, much thought and planning inside the military was devoted to low‐intensity conflict. The military also altered its force structure to meet the demands of LIC. Some army divisions shed heavy equipment so they could be moved rapidly to areas facing limited threat. Because speed in LIC operations was considered paramount, the Pentagon invested substantial resources in flexible air deployment of ground forces. Sophisticated “smart” weapons, such as cruise missiles, although originally designed for general war with the nations of the Warsaw Pact, also proved ideal for a “surgical strike” against a lesser foe. The navy pointed to aircraft carriers, with their ability to “show the flag” or project airpower quickly, as excellent weapons for low‐intensity conflict. Sophisticated communications allowed tight control of complex operations anywhere in the world. LIC also required a high degree of interservice cooperation, accelerating the trend toward operational integration within the armed forces.

There were several examples of LIC during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The first was an inauspicious beginning for the return of the U.S. military to the world stage. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and surrounded Beirut. President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz agreed to send a Marine contingent to Beirut as part of an international force to escort elements of the Palestine Liberation Organization out of the city. That objective was completed quickly. However, despite strenuous objections from the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the United States soon became involved in the Lebanese civil war itself. In October 1983, a suicide attacker drove a car bomb into the Marine headquarters and killed 241 Marines and 50 French troops. Lebanon, in the Pentagon's eyes, was developing into exactly the kind of situation they feared the most: an open‐ended struggle with no clear objective. Despite the humiliation (more Marines died in the bomb attack than were lost later by the entire U.S. force during Desert Storm), Reagan was wise enough to withdraw the Marine contingent.

The setback in Lebanon did not seriously concern Reagan nor did it harm his resilient popularity. The Caribbean and Central America were particular points of attention. In the late 1970s, the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua had taken a sharp turn to the left. Marxist insurgencies were building in both Guatemala and El Salvador. A pro‐Marxist government was in power on the small island of Grenada. Reagan believed, with some reason, that Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union were involved with all of these problems. When an extremist Marxist faction violently overthrew the government in Grenada, Reagan sent in the troops. In October 1983, two weeks after the suicide bombing in Beirut, American forces quickly occupied Grenada. In marked contrast to Lebanon, the Americans were treated like liberators by the local population. During the U.S. intervention in Grenada, the military put on a major show of force in Central America. The army airlifted men to Honduras and a large naval task force staged a maneuver off the coast of Nicaragua.

Both Congress and the Pentagon were very uneasy about a direct American military involvement in Central America. American participation in the conflict remained deep as Reagan sent economic aid to anti‐Communist governments in the region. The Pentagon stayed in the background, however. Except for a small team of military advisers sent to El Salvador, military training for Central American officers was done in the United States. The United States did funnel aid to anti‐Sandinista guerrilla forces, nicknamed the “Contras,” but this project was run by the Central Intelligence Agency and individuals inside the White House. The same was true of American aid sent to back up guerrilla warfare opposing Cuban‐aided Marxist governments in Africa. Later, George Bush extended covert aid to Afghan forces fighting the Russians.

In the 1980s, the American military became involved in some unfamiliar territory. Because the United States was Israel's strongest supporter, American civilians had become frequent targets for Arab terrorism. Unfortunately, it was very clear that many terrorists were receiving direct support from several governments—including Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. On 15 April 1986, the United States launched a heavy air strike against several targets in Libya. Since that time the Pentagon has developed extensive contingency plans for dealing with a serious terrorist threat in the United States or abroad. Indeed, many officials believe that a terrorist group procuring nuclear weapons raises one of the most serious threats facing the United States today.

The Pentagon also became entangled in the “war” against the illegal drug traffic first announced by Reagan and endorsed by all subsequent administrations. This is another area where the military has preferred to stay in the background. Nevertheless, military advisers have helped governments in Latin America operate various drug interdiction and drug eradication programs. Although the military views drug interdiction as a law enforcement problem, the Pentagon continues to play a role in this politically sensitive issue.

The stunning collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union in 1991 caused a difficult reappraisal of the essential mission of U.S. armed forces. Fighting a massive conventional war with the old Warsaw Pact nations was no longer a realistic possibility. A nuclear threat remained, but the direct military confrontation that would trigger an exchange of strategic weapons became far less likely. The fall of the Soviet Union raised the possibility of ethnic conflict and political breakdown throughout the Eurasian landmass. The United States, by default, found itself the only major military power in a dangerous and disorderly world. Consequently, LIC became, outside the nuclear realm, the principal mission of the American military. Although it is impossible to foresee events, the Pentagon believes that LIC will continue to be crucial in the decades to come.

[See also Caribbean and Latin America, U.S. Military Involvement in the; Counterinsurgency; El Salvador, U.S. Military Involvement in; Middle East, U.S. Military Involvement in the; Nicaragua, U.S. Military Involvement in; Terrorism and Counterterrorism.]

Bibliography

  • Patrick Brogan, The Fighting Never Stopped: A Comprehensive Guide to World Conflict Since 1945, 1990.
  • Martin Walker, The Cold War, 1994.
  • Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, 1996.
  • Lawrence E. Walsh, Firewall: The Iran‐Contra Conspiracy and Cover‐Up, 1997
Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
US Military Dictionary: low intensity conflict
Top

Political-military confrontation, ranging from propaganda and subversion to the actual use of armed forces, between contending states or groups below the level of conventional war and above the level of routine, peaceful competition among states. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

Wikipedia: Low intensity conflict
Top

Low intensity conflict (LIC) is the use of military forces applied selectively and with restraint to enforce compliance with the policies or objectives of the political body controlling the military force. The term can be used to describe conflicts where at least one or both of the opposing parties operate along such lines.

Contents

Low intensity operations

Low-Intensity Operations is a military term for the deployment and use of troops and/or assets in situations other than war. Generally these operations are against non-state actors and are given terms like counter-insurgency, anti-subversion, and peacekeeping[1]. Some, such as Noam Chomsky, view LIC as state terrorism.[2] The term "low intensity operations" appears to have originated with a British soldier, General Sir Frank Kitson.[3]

Official State Definitions

United States

Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Army as:

... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.[4]

The manual also states that "successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[4]

Implementation

Weapons

As the name suggests, in comparison with conventional operations the armed forces involved operate at a greatly reduced tempo, with fewer soldiers, a reduced range of tactical equipment and limited scope to operate in a military manner. For example the use of air power, pivotal in modern warfare, is often relegated to transport and surveillance. Artillery is often not used when LIC occurs in populated areas. The role of the armed forces is dependent on the stage of the insurrection, whether it has progressed to armed struggle or is in an early stage of propaganda and protests.

Intelligence

Intelligence gathering is essential to an efficient basis of LIC operation instructions. Electronic and signal gathering intelligence, ELINT and SIGINT, proves largely ineffective against low intensity opponents. LIC generally requires more hands-on HUMINT methods of information retrieval.

Stages

In the first stages of insurrection, much of an army's work is "soft" - working in conjunction with civil authorities in psychological operations, propaganda, counter-organizing, so-called "hearts and minds." If the conflict progresses, possibly into armed clashes, the role develops with the addition of the identification and removal of the armed groups - but again, at a low level, in communities rather than throughout entire cities. (see also Counter-insurgency, Divide and rule, Fourth generation warfare and Military operations other than war.

Examples

Britain

The British campaigns against the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 1950s, against the Malayan Races Liberation Army led by the communist Chin Peng in Malaya during the "Malayan Emergency" from 1948 to 1960, Aden in the 60s, Oman in the 70s, against EOKA in Cyprus in the 1960s, and "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland from the late 1960s to mid-1990s.[citation needed] Since World War II, the British military has engaged in over fifty low intensity campaigns.[citation needed] The US Rapid Deployment Forces were formed to deal with low intensity conflicts.[citation needed]

Israel

The Israeli Defence Forces have performed hundreds of low-intensity operations during the al-Aqsa Intifada, including the creation by SHABAK of a large network of HUMINT agents to better enable Israel Defence Forces identification and targeted killings of insurgent leaders.[citation needed]

Mexico

(see the Chiapas conflict)

See also

References

  1. ^ G.V. Brandolini (2002). Low intensity conflicts. CRF Press, Bergamo, 16 p.
  2. ^ Barsamian, David (2001), "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State: An Interview with Noam Chomsky", Monthly Review 53 (6), http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm 
  3. ^ Kitson, Frank (1971), Low-intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping, Faber and Faber, ISBN 0-571-16181-2 
  4. ^ a b United States Department of the Army (5 December 1990), Field Manual 100-20: Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020ch1.htm#s_9 
  • Asprey, Robert. War in the Shadows, ISBN 0-595-22593-4
  • British Army (ed.). Land Operations, Volume III, Counter Revolutionary Operations, 1969.
  • Buffaloe, David. Conventional Forces in Low-Intensity Conflict: The 82nd Airborne at Firebase Shkin, Afghanistan [1], October 2004.
  • Hammes, Thomas X.. The Sling and the Stone, Zenith Press, 2004. ISBN 0760320594
  • van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. The Free Press, 1991. ISBN0-02-933155-2

 
 

 

Copyrights:

US Military History Companion. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Copyright © 2000 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
US Military Dictionary. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Low intensity conflict" Read more