Three Ways to Improve Military Interventions

By Patrick Maxwell

The complexity of contemporary civil wars—especially those in which a multiplicity of armed actors compete for control or resources—makes it difficult for standard foreign military interventions to increase security and improve stability. Contemporary civil wars often feature interconnected local and national agendas; unfortunately, the processes aimed at ending civil wars tend to focus on high-level actors, while ignoring the local-level dynamics that fuel national-level conflict. In such contexts, how can external actors conducting peacekeeping or so-called peace enforcement efforts ensure the safety of civilian communities and contribute to peace and security?

Three overlapping and mutually supportive strategies may be helpful: (1) rigorous analyses of the dynamics of local conflict and political power; (2) a move by security actors toward “acceptance strategies” of security; and (3) a commitment to take local grievances and actors seriously and on their own terms, without imposition or manipulation of agendas.

Of these three, the first should be self-evident. Civil wars are complicated, and action without knowledge is far more likely to enflame conflict than to quell it. Information-gathering and analysis require language and cultural competencies, which can be put to good use in negotiations and peace processes.

Humanitarian aid organizations in crisis zones (for whom the use of force, including employment of armed guards, is often prohibited) have long relied on acceptance-based security strategies in which the goodwill of local communities and security actors becomes the best guarantee of their own safety. This has the incidental benefit of placing emphasis on high-quality work and relationships. Communities are quite naturally more likely to accept outsiders who clearly benefit them, and aid organizations thus become more accountable to the local population. Security actors should undertake similar strategies, in which community goodwill represents their primary security strategy and kinetic responses become secondary. This will help ease tensions and build the political capital necessary to encourage systemic change.

Most importantly, outsiders committed to peace must work with—and take seriously—the grievances and viewpoints of local actors. The exit strategies for international actors depend on the existence of well-functioning governance structures, which themselves depend on the resolution (or, at least, the careful management) of local grievances. Local actors are the best positioned to address conflicts on the ground, and will remain in place long after external parties have left. External forces can support peace better by acting as conveners and mediators than by pushing their own vision or agenda.

Adopting these approaches will help interveners overcome challenges common in today’s civil wars. Small-arms proliferation and the weaponization of everyday tools (improvised bombs, rented trucks, and so forth), allow individual actors to pose significant threats to civilian communities and political stability. Traditional security responses are inadequate for managing these threats and the costs—both financial and social—of hardening every potential target would be prohibitive. Individuals or lone wolves can quickly cause high numbers of casualties, leaving traditional security personnel unable to respond in time to prevent a significant loss of life. Plus, many attackers do not plan to survive the fallout of the attacks they commit, which reduces the potential of deterrence-based strategies.

The civils wars in which the United States, United Nations, or other powers may be tempted to intervene in the near future are fantastically complex, and the chances that foreign military interventions will further fuel these conflicts are high. Purely military strategies have routinely failed to impose peace in the past. External military forces are rarely able to conclusively defeat local insurgencies, and previous interventions have instead prolonged conflicts. Local grievances can quickly snowball, gaining national resonance, and warring parties can instrumentalize regional or global tensions in the pursuit of local agendas.

Security actors who understand local dynamics and grievances and can work in partnership with local communities will be better able to address these dynamics. A broad strategy of easing local tension will contribute to national stability, and building ties with diverse communities can give intervening states the legitimacy they need to sponsor wider peace talks, national-level programming, or tackle important strategic concerns. And finally, greater acceptance within communities will lead to fewer violent incidents against intervening security actors.

Patrick Maxwell is a graduate student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School. He is the winner of the fall 2018 CSS “Pressing Questions” Competition.