Stability and Peace Conflict Operations Part 2

7/30/2019 Stability and Peace Conflict Operations Part 2

1/26

Stability and peace conflict operations /8-28-2012/University of Oslo/ Oscar Garca Ramos

Comments before 1st lecture: Just wars?

Soldiers are treated respectfully? But the resistance and the insurgency are second category

soldiers? Everything is then established by conventions? But, in these scenarios there

shouldnt be conventions, at least for the insurgencies (at the end there are, in a very basic

way, but other factors as cultural misinterpretations and ignorance makes blurry the

understanding of different groups rules regarding use of violence).

1. How should media respond ethically if a terrorist goal is to achieve propaganda from

media itself?

2. Should information be concealed to suppress the effects of the terrorists attacks? Or

it must be presented as a part of the reality and let the audience decide? Should weassure the, message of the terrorists to succeed?

3. How can you approach any source if each one wont let you state their names? How

can someone understand that critical information must be believed even though there

is no official way of proving it?

LECTURE 1 (BRYNJAR, LIA): PREVIOUS TERRORISM AND ITS CONSOLIDATION

This is a result of post western colonial domination: poverty, inequality of western success,

also Globalization makes things (violence) easier to achieve (means of communication,

profits and goods are far more easier to get than in other periods of human history). Thus all

the new ideological conflicts resulted from these colonial remnants (fall of the USSR and

USA dominancy; Socialism vs Capitalism) and made a new type of warrior determined to

martyrdom, seeking to destroy the superpowers for its arrogance, hypocritical polices, seek

for individualism and liberal democracy. Terrorism is a form of struggle against

modernization (depends where; Mexico can have drug cartels, but their biases are a mix ofwestern and (prehispanic): Some may be more westernized in their believes. Even though,

their main goal is related to gain political-military power and force than to tear down the

whole system. Perhaps the main struggle is for becoming the most legitimate cartel within

the other cartels in one area; it seems that the government tries to stop all the groups

equally, but many non official reports imply that there are negotiations and agreements to

secure both political parties and drug cartels status quo. There is a struggle to achieve


2/26

certain hegemony with each group).

Is it really possible to predict terrorists behavior? Variables to understand and

measure possible terrorism upraise might be consequence of:

Globalization and its capability to spread armed conflicts.

International relations & global markets

Demographic factors

Ideological shifts

Technological innovations

At the end why we want to make things more democratic?

This theory is essential because there is no way of surveying these groups and

behaviors, its the only way to analysis and prepare possible solutions (or at least try).

Terrorists dont call themselves terrorists

Terrorists have several ideologies with the motives they agree on and fit them to

justify their actions. What implications would carry if they accepted the term? They

lose legitimacy? Who is the terrorist?

Most terrorist attack necessarily need of an armed conflict to spur?

Terrorist diagram of objectives

Target Victim

(Selected or premeditated) (Non targeted causality or random)

1. Terrorist (transmitter)

2. Target (intended recipient)

3. Bombing, ambush, etc (message)


3/26


4. Reaction of target (feedback)

The main goal of terrorists is that many people watch their acts in order to use a

symbol to achieve some political goal (Could Mexico be a semi authoritarian state? We have

transnational organized crime, political regime and search of legitimacy, corrupt elites andunderdevelopment that provides black holes for both crime and insurgency). Demographic

growth at isolated communities gives the work force to maintain terrorists forces.

Terrorism part 2 (Lect1)

Terrorism as political propaganda

Premeditated political violence, non-combatants targets

Sub national groups. Non-State (insurgents)

Intended to influence an audience

Political communications, it must attend the mass media. Unilateral, one attack to one naive

target. Act of violence must speak (symbolic attacks on objects that they represent a

countrys example of a value: an ideal).

Domestic: attack on the police and state control areas (challenge for the local and

national violence monopoly).

Terrorism can be divided in two areas of operation:

No conflict zone: fear on the population, due the rareness of the use of violence in

their local context against them.

Conflict zone: not too much fear, due the normality of use of violence in the local

context.

Terrorism is considered as illegitimate, insurgencies uses terrorism, even guerrilla

uses terrorism and is seen as more legitimate. The problem thrives within in the justifications

(or excuses for using violence to obtain certain political goal) each state, group or actor

understands and defends as a legitimate for its use. Other factor that is needed for terrorism

to develop is geography, a vital space to sustain terrorism (non guerrilla groups located in


4/26

this zones helps terrorism too).

A sign for big insurgences is the importance given to spread ideologies, they want to

cause an overreaction and make population act; revel the fascist nature of the state to

undermine its legitimacy.

Technological development boosts terrorism in both communications and traveling.

The anticolonial ideology (more brutal than anarchist violence)

4 ways of conceiving terrorism

1. Before de 70s-80s

2. 70s-80s (Leftist and separatists) no need for dramatic things to change.

3. 90s Remains of the Cold War.

4. 2000s till today, mostly jihadists due religion causes

Causes for joining a terrorist group

Become holy warriors

Love for violence (not mentally ill at most, but there are some cases in which it may

be possible. Solo terrorists may have more pathological and mental problems)

Friends join.

Ideological conviction (mostly leaders)

Young people likes ideology at first, they radicalize mutually and is difficult to sate in

what step they might become terrorists.

Contagious theory says that the idea is to spread the manifest or ideological essence of

certain groups to inspire other groups to fight, even though they might not share some

concepts equally. Things can be just arbitrary.

During the 90s there where not to many operations, but Al-Qaida(AQ) stated to


5/26


develop international attacks and the Taliban emulated their success later on the 2000s,

managing to create a mode for suicide tactics. Its important to mention that modernization,

socially disruptive, incites violence, there are correlations between industrialization and its

economic growth and in weak states, its easy to recruit forces due poverty and internal

instability because of local war. There is no money to invest on intelligence and makes

terrorism easy to operate and other factors such as ethnic cleaning may sprout as

consequences.

The search for legitimacy is vital, minorities lack the integration. (Some may say that

democratization of certain sates may be a way to have an ideological terrorism. Totalitarian

regimes, with an authoritarian past that have consequences today) The old bipolar system of

the Cold War where higher sponsored terrorism, disappeared and modify to a new

transitional terrorism; Iran, Irak, Afganitan, etc. ( due changes in regimes or invasions due

the loss of their benefactors)

Support terrorism is costly for states and now private funding; drugs, extortions,

blackmailing, taxes even to legal business provide the economical funding. Most of these

groups have support from certain sectors and parts of the population. Terrorists funding its

difficult to track due the nations involved and the globalization of terrorism, territorial

distance.

Today Terrorism:

Religious terrorism that uses Mass casualty terrorism or super terrorism where weapons of

mass destruction are at stake. This is related to the new terrorism. More independent states

and international groups. The wiliness to kill in mass scale grew Ex. WTC, Oklahoma

bombing, AUM: Gas Sarin in tokio.

In the case of Europe, it meddles, the attacks even aimed to the US, they are for

support or interference with Israel. Even might consider ceasefire in certain situations. But

for Al-Qaede, the Jews are the main enemy,

Panislamic ideology: AQ as a liberation, no revolution, or treat is effective against the

Jews a Global Jihad is made Against Jews and their tactical ally, the US. But, their ideology


6/26

main goal isnt the US at all.

Al-Qaida rise during the operation desert shield, desert storm as an anti empire

group, internet is a tool to collapse sates because in multicultural states makes minor groups

support them securely and cheaply in world wide. Also Al Qaida was a coalition vs theUSSR.

The Arab as a liberation movement in Middle East this level was not against the

regimes, but the defeat of these groups made them look after Al-Qaida to fight (USA 90s).Al-

Qaida is a series of groups. Not a unique centralized organization.

AQ, expands by making other groups join their ideology Sudan, Afghanistan and

Pakistan where safe havens existed, but there is no evidence that these are some

benefactors for Middle east. There has been a fight where AQ benefits from other conflicts

such as Chechnya, they had some religious legitimacy to make recruits and AQ also

contributed with propaganda in battle fronts, helped them train people for their cause.

SECOND LECTURE

Counter insurgence, no legitimacy and governments as to an effort to get it, especially in

Afghanistan and in Iraq. CI begins as the regime, not as an insurgence, as Libya. Pressure

on government makes them change, but in the example of Libya the antiregime operations

made a change in regime. The liberal agenda was defending against it. Peace keeping

operations become to counterinsurgency operations in order to change the regime and

states. If the unipolarity arises, a soft balancing develops and there is no support achieved,

Is openly said that going alone is too costly when there is no cooperation. USA tends to go

into wars like this: never alone. USA may lack power in some cases, but have rather force.

Nested games, model to rational acting:

Own opinion in our country

Institutions are part of this thinking

The situation of the area of intervention is at stake of the previous factors

These operations depend in each case, some may say its irrational, but the goal is to be


7/26


rational. You must link these three, but in small countries depends of the institutions. Its still

necessary to check these labels (even they might be irrational). You must do something

about; you must please the institutions to shape things, because they arent static in the

international operations. As we stated, definition of terrorism has changed, but was seemed

towards crimes and not security concerns. Right now is a security issue.

STATES ARE THE NEW RELIGIONS HUNTINGTON TRIED TO CLASH?

Hegemonic rules:

Position in the world as a useful use makes go the world go round and makes rules, always

to legitimize and because the nature of states to legitimize other states can react negatively.

The local interests, dont fulfill their expectations of the hegemonies.

You must get your hands dirty in over to protect civilians. UN imposing an assembly

of forces is weak( Western thinks that by only protecting is being legitimate?) in short

periods of time, still UN is very offensive in peace conflict operations (Congo), its

counterpart, the EU doesnt want to get their hands that dirty, for the EU is more important to

deal with securitization by:

Military security

All means must be achieved by non conventional use of force (good treatment,

according to global values What are those values? Western values?): impose

democracy.

NO ONE LIKES TO BE TOLD HOW TO BEHAVE.

Its not wise to remove certain regimes (utilitarian for totalitarian). Syrias new regime will

be? The second election is always the tricky one

In these scenarios economics are highly politicized.

Today Wars:

Not real security issues and makes skeptical and cant long last due money contributions


8/26

its expensive. Weak ones win these wars

Unipolar world

China not clearly for war.

Symmetric big wars are big business, asymmetric are not business. Actors like big wars, no

small. States vs other states, or perhaps state ideologies (Capitalism vs Religion). Knowing

culture is important to win wars today.

Force power

Power makes other do things you want

Force is use of strong guns Big badaboom!

Is Israel more powerful than US in the Middle East? Where does power relies on?

Security politics, not political discussion. Economic regionalism succeeds when rooted in a

common way of living.

THIRD LECTURE

Counter insurgency operations

Why not to gain the public domain?

Whats need to gain the favor of the people?

Cultural respect; understanding and building (teaching, comprehension and

adaptation) Gain their hearts and will win their minds. (Mejor a la Maquiavelo, o me

amas o me temes)

Love (bjale Lenon) Requires respect and care for both sides in one similar

quantity, if one side gains more its her/his duty to help to other or not (internal

awareness and change) or change.


9/26


In order to achieve domination you must control their minds and spirit (Jed o

qu), this can be achieved by learning and acquiring it or imposing it; if its

imposed, be sure the dominated dont realize this. If you dont gain the trust of the

population, you wont destroy the insurgency.

Is democratization worthy (lives, resources, ideas: The future)?

How can casualties will be justified and accepted? What is needed to achieve this?

Technology doesnt solve human-to-human problems.

TILL WHAT POINT THE MISSION BECOMES RELEVANT?

The American Way of Life? Whats this?

Preferred physicals fight than ideological or spirit fight? What can bend will easier? Physical

violence, ideological voices (How can we mange effective torturing and suffering to achieve

our goals (Democracy, God or whatever)? This is sick and irrational).

Americans Democracy=God?

(Western) (2000s)

Christianities values. Democracy isnt possible in non western values.


10/26

FOURTH LECTURE

Counter regime operations

Remove regimes, polices or to support and insurgency, more common as Libya.

Counter insurgency

Iraq was not at the begging, but it becomes one.

*Counter regimes are more conventional wars. The support of insurgencies Iraq an Libya

legitimacy problems are different from counter insurgencies.

Global principles

Not enrolment, the responsibility to protect.

Coin operations:

A rebellion against an authority (not civil war, insurgency).

Guerrilla and terrorism are means not, goals.

But , some states will accept it as legitimate.

Often they can have support, directly or indirectly.

Insurgency:

Political

Religious Criminals?

Economic: will to take part in criminal acts (criminals make revolutions).

ideological

Ethnic

Insurgency can develop within the situations that make civil war/ balance


11/26


power).Propaganda advertisement useful for both sides.

Colonia experience, can it be used now?

Different insurgencies?

Radical ideology that becomes a symmetrical war.

Revolutionary communism is dead (Not China or Russia).

No radical solutions. State support is rare (Gadafi).

Insurgencies have no ideology; states weakness doesnt deliver security and economy, in

that area acts independently from the state because of the security and economy lacks thestate doesnt gives.

Market of government not over but how they will develop?

Society changes, rules and norms are weakened. Its legitimate because they are weak.

Weak states cannot meet the demands of expectation. Not outside pressure, because if they

change policies is a sign of weakness. People expects more of the population, if not, the

population is disappointed to change policies. You need engineering of state which is

extremely expensive and cultural issue.

Forces

Government and insurgencies

Other states that support, other groups (ethnic, criminals, militias) at local, if government can

t, militias can be paid (criminals and warlords). Its an alternative but as risky a choice,

demobilization and integration (some, not all meet expectations).

Local fame than criminals just want money, organized crime on insurgency its good because

makes profit and deals. They demand and dont give anything in return, but they give a way

of living and social identity. No administration=failure. These guys want to extend the

conflicts because they live of it.


12/26

Politics=Criminals? (Mostly


13/26


Three pillars

Information makes you cope situation and the signal is clear if you ate part of the group. This

helps to understand the conflict. This means are not stability, but maintain it or try to reach it,

you want a level of balance and stability I relative. We search well being for some.

FIFTH LECTURE

NATO, not just military states alliances; origination of permanent organization.

NATO after the cold war (Defragmentation of the states).

28 States in the NATO, it is not unified and no equally in forces. Also its partnerships; as one

mediator. No distinction between partner and members. NATO had economic goals, how

integration and security policies make NATO work? They try to make a new force to stabilize

the power with U.S? Also they want to state power protocols with them.


14/26

They react positive to the security policies.

What is the extent of security?

Still there are some issues as Greece and Turkey.

Rearrangement of NATO to hegemonize power (90s-2000s).

NATO LOOKS LIKE THE UN

Too many organizations with different goals? (NACC, EAPC, PFP, and NATO)

Whats a stabilization operation?

The bush revolution neoconservatives and aim of spreading American values and

democracy.

NATO wants to become more focused on security and its not at all of returning home.

Collective defense.

Regional operations (not global NATO, but it could, you never know even its not their

goal).

Multipolar world?

Stable or unstable?

Rise of China, India and Brazil inevitable?

USA is not withdrawing (why it should)?

Political comprehension guidance/ CPG (how o fight counter insurgency?) Civil militarycooperation. Recently is needing balance, between international operations and collective

difference.

Missile defense programs and DPRK.

North Korea too had nuclear devices.


15/26


Leave things to the Afghan authorities (not a good idea). Smart defense, cuts on European

budget on defense. Less money and more cooperation and flexibility between members

and partners.

Heterogeneous alliance

NATO is a threat?

England and the Anglosaxon, want to make global NATO, also they make reforms for

weapons and strategies.

Germany and France are, skeptic due their own interests. Poland and CEE want to be part

of it, but not to causes don like (money). ISAF.

NATO solidarity is fragile

NATO has become of partnerships.

EU constitutional crisis, Euro crisis, enlargement and fatigue, legitimize in detections CSDP.

SIXTH LECTURE: THE US AND EU

EU and a military force

What is the EU?

Economic giant, political dwarf and economic worm.

Consensus by members makes it not effective in some area.

EU second military budget (and largest army), allies and some other forces.

NATO VS EU

EU not an alliance defense and intervention, seems like a federation, United States of

Europe -NO-

Market, people, etc. Also laws within these sates are similar.


16/26

Security and defense policy, how to follow security and defense policies. Economic

integration is a mean for an end, to afford peace within its enemies, interdependency of

costs of war. Peace rational.

Integration project: EDC European defense community (1952).

NATO (90) Reunified Germany which is controlled) CFSP into progressive frame of foreign

defense and security policy.

The thought of EU most be different from NATO.

EU has more as a nation state to gain instead in foreign policies

Comprehensive approach to civilians and military instruments to assume peace.

European council

Intergovernmental consensus of members

Crisis management of 27 members on national budget

National parliaments

Civilian and military instruments

vsEU comision

Supranational council making

Trade long term prevention


17/26


Has on budget

European council

Civilian instruments

Military:

Rapid force and troops has shuffle members (EU- NATO)

2007:1500 which ate sent on standby.

Defense agency and capability (Stuff for wars).

1million of soldiers, but arent movable.

Autonomous HQ structure.

No collective defense, clause (solidarity, clause means uses NATO and the EU in

natural disasters).

7 military operations

Civilians:

Police

Rule of Law

Civilian administration

Civil protection

Civilian response teams

Autonomous HQ structures

20 civilians missions.


18/26

*Both have troubles, even though when it comes to communication.

Most operations carry on Africa, but also internationally and local.

Responsibility in Europe: rise hope, crush them and repeat until is over.

EU is a soft power is a stick with a carrot.

*How ever:

It realigns with the US, there is a third way mainly due institutions economic blessing

(or crisis).

Defense of industry in the common market?

Creating joint forces in Europe and share interests.

EU-US-Will become more like?

The US stability operations

US is one concrete organization, they have small man power to organize these stability

operations. Us is in control of worlds oceans and air space(global commons and

communications).

9/11

Inside the attacks, economic, political and military targets.

COIN OPERATIONS ARE NOT PROFITIBALE, US dont like stability operations.

[FM 3-24: COUNTER INSOURGENCY]

Asymmetrical conflict

Protect population

Presence rather than protection

Minimum use of force


19/26


Military and civil line of operations

They where willingly to do things in order not to loose. They have joint doctrines: Army and

marine corps.

Unit of command

This needs civilian leaders (political wars).

The military approach

Ideally they have unity of command

Depend in the geographical context of the area. Iraq was urban and sectarian.Afghanistan tribal and rural.

2008 stability operations are core issue and US can be both defensive and offensive.

2009 US agree to have forces to COIN operations (State, defense and USA aid).

Basic soldiers

Add brigades

Scrap out from technologies (more boots)

Geopolitics

The longer wars today empathizes the use of defense strategy in new geopolitical settings

on core areas:

Asia

Rebuilding towards it

Emphasis on alliances

Expand network


20/26

Long term strategic partnership

Middle East

Fight extremists

Preserve allies

Europe

Net producer of security

Smart defense

From four to two brigades

US Tasks (2012)

Fight against terrorism

Deter and defeat organizations

Operate in cyberspace and space

Nuclear defenses

ODR 2010

Win wars/ Prevent conflicts/prepare to defeat enemies

SEVENTH LECTURE: EMERGING TRENDS IN UN PEACE OPERATIONS

Stability operations: Non war ops, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, counter

insurgency operations, etc (1990).

Ambitious ops: Namibia, Somalia, DR Congo, Afgn. Its focus in elections, protect

civilian. Even though, there where failures too. These are forces to work too in joint


21/26


ops (civilians and military). Bigger role for the military forces in terms and scope.

Protection of civilians: efforts to reduce war effects on civilian life. Traditional

understandings of protection, legal obligations, humanitarian aid, long term

development aid. Warfare has changed?

Use force to protect civilians from physical violence. Civilians are the center of war,

today. The support of civilians determines the results of the people.

Moral reasons: civilians are primarily targets, more civilians die than soldiers.

WW1 1-10 AF 3-1 Iraq 8-1 Congo 100-1

Failures: Bosnia and Rwanda

Consequences: UN has explicit mandates to protect by all necessary means.

Humanitarian interventions-Kosovo 1990 (legitimate & Illegal).

2005 R2P Are we allowed to intervene (Right to protect)?

Lesson learnt: You need more force to protect civilians.

Military strategic reasons, its and objective to win people.

Collateral Damage: One dead civilian=Ten insurgents. Hundred of dead civilians=end

of operation.

Consequences: Protection in counter insurgencies operations (Iraq, Afghanistan,

Somalia). Lessons learned: less military force to protect civilians.

Now

Protection gap and still civilians are not safe. How much is needed to stop the

threats. Case of Libya(2011)

NATO

Defense of Benghazi


22/26

Arms embargo

No Fly zone

What nowRegime changes

NATO has to increase the broad of action and stated that NATO forced the change of

regime. Still you need to change the regime, but other countries reacted (Russia).

Facts and figures of current UN OPS

Troops and police contribute:

Financial contributors: USA, Japan and then the others

Personal and troops:

Pakistan and Ghana

Challenges:

Building nations vs patrolling and reporting

Need for broad cooperation, expertise and civilian capacity

Consent, impartiality and use of force

Completing agendas, development humanitarian aid and security

Controversial means of intelligence

Lack of equipment and money

POC (protection of civilians) in UN ops:

One of the most important tasks

Strategies, concepts and training

No consensus


23/26


Immediate physical protection, but also political process and protective

environment.

Monusco in DR Congo has developed strategies concepts and tools.

How to measure success? Not really possible, just estimates.

Use o technology and common sense, why should I give a cell phone to someone I

cant help?

Sometimes, its a long term conflict. War has changed; civilians play greater role, both

in bearing brunt of war and determine the results in conflicts.

Protection of civilians as a military task.

Military role has increased, but is still unclear UN in front of developing POC.

EIGHT LECTURE: CIVIL & MILITARY RELATIONSHIPS

After WWII contingency vs. politics and military to control military, the militaries are

skeptic of what they should do and civilians role of doing. The broad array of how

actors(military and civil) act. Roles and responsibilities of both areas.

Most models are opposite: Huntington/Military implications and civil implications.

Huntingtons approach:

Objective control

Separation model

It degenerates if becomes civilian

Liberalism

Is a threat due their tradition and values in military?

Separate values at the functional


24/26

Control of military is objective

Political part of control and military autonomy

Politicians make objectives, military to accomplish them. Vietnam, Korea, etc military and

political mingle together.

Morriss approach:

Model of convergence

Control of military by subjective, the military integrated to society, ethos forged by society.

No separation

This is against subgroups that tend to isolate and are prone to lose legitimacy

Popular representation, conscription to minor societies in the terms of values, consistency

and their outcomes. Representative as a source of British cultural tradition in colonial wars.

Force to fight small wars against insurgence, force as constable forces as used to stabilize.

How can both me balanced?

Military roles are less approached and built due several main reasons:

Empirical evidence of conflicts(no state vs state).

Vacuum of USSR and USA made fragile states have internal wars, this affects civil

and military.

Symmetric to asymmetric fights

Symbiotic relation between society and insurgence.

Poverty, economic results, political wars, fun, revenge, also for local bounty (food,

recruits, etc).

Actors have no significant capacities, no military hardware; lack of water, food,

droughts, etc. This factors challenge military because their arent their roles.


25/26


During the military process, they build peace operations, have a mandate between actors

and concert in abroad territory, they are allowed to self defense.

Impartiality worked with civilian actors, but this change in 90s (Bosnia and Rwanda) to

protect civilians to genocide; more peace keeping.

Civil military and key features:

Mandates

Roles and responsibilities

Intrastate cooperation, support political regimes and provide local security of political

perspectives.

International for a part of a political party, humanitarian branch and context as

Unitarian system to protect or achieve a project.

Impartiality, no matter what, neutrality no part is conflict independent, guidance and

authority no military and political project. Roles, responsibilities and mandates may

become blurry around. Its important to teach locals to gain experience. Building,

reconstructing and doing. Motivation to create legitimacy; northern than south.Medical units, rivals, tribes, intelligence and states in a better position; potentially

dangerous, a normative military motive in a civilian perspective. How are militants and

humanitarians?

Risks for attacks, cultural discrepancy, and military are trained and equip violence.

Huntingtons loyalty discipline and orders.

Civilians can also participate, but are less rigid and disciplined, emphasized in howresults the the objective.

Also only helps if people just consensus and cultural negative perceptions.

Level of funding and awareness, (militancy) low level context.

Military standard operations, drills & relays of engagement to chain of command.


26/26

Help efficiency to regulate pressure and decision taking.

Cultural, social and tradition focused in military wills.

Humanitarian is emphasized in non long, focused gender, ethic population, exploring roles

and community, carry means into the civilians in terms of culture.

Time perspective

Local contractors and idealists forces

Militaries rotate 6 years

Conclusion:

No development with any society and security without development

No development of the military and civilian authorities

Documents

Stability and Peace Conflict Operations Part 2