Between 2012 and 2014, I wrote the first article on Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC). Somehow this article has been lost in my changing blogs and computers. Hence, what follows is an in-depth look at LIC. Please note, several authors have significantly contributed to my understanding of LIC, but none so much as Lt. Colonel Alan J. Tinder, who wrote a paper for the Air War College in 1990, titled: “Low-Intensity Conflict.” From the Colonel, I have learned much and benchmarked this principle to more thoroughly understand LIC, how to recognize LIC, and how to detail LIC for others. The other compelling source is L. C. Green’s paper on “Low-Intensity Conflict and the Law.” My aim here is to synthesize this information into a manageable topic and aid understanding.
Too often in America, we do not recognize LIC. When the Verizon Labor Unions had to be legally restrained from committing LIC against Verizon, the judge seemed to want to call the acts of violence nothing but poor decisions by some people. Yet, the labor union had begun a tactic of pressuring Verizon by destroying property, scare tactics for third-party contractors, and causing mayhem to obtain their demands. Hence, the labor union committed LIC and got away with it, no punishment, no accountability, no responsibility. Never forget, “Barely three percent of violent crimes committed by union members lead to an arrest or conviction. … Most victims of union violence are unemployed workers looking for a job [to] feed their families. “Scabs,” they call them. Subhuman scum. Untouchables. People who, in the minds of unionists and their enablers, are worthy of the same kind of vile abuse that Klu Klux Klansman used to dish out to African Americans that didn’t know their place.”
What is LIC?
Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is the official name for what happens when individuals or governments hire intermediaries to conduct violent operations from a position of security. LIC is a misnomer; those who have become victims of the barbaric cruelty of those practicing LIC find nothing “Low” about the experience. The conflict is intense, the actions brutal, and the practitioners remain cunning adversaries using and employing willing dupes to hide the true depths of moral decay inherent in the societal destructions and deprivations the practitioners are enacting. Many confuse LIC in describing the actions of unbridled violence committed by ideologues under the banner of terrorism. The US Military Joint Chiefs of Staff define LIC as:
“A limited political-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence (Tinder 1990) [emphasis mine].”
Green (1997) adds a key ingredient to the description of LIC from Tinder (1990).
“… Non-international conflict itself is a refined term for what [was] formerly known as revolutions or civil wars, particularly when these have developed into major operations with the likelihood or reality of atrocities being committed against non-combatants. Whether civilians or those [rendered] hors de combat, a fact that is often more common in non-international … conflicts, especially when ideological, ethnic, or religious differences are in issue. It is for this reason that it must be borne in mind that the term low-intensity [conflict] has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict” [emphasis mine].
Some will proclaim loudly, primarily due to affiliation with or money donated from deep-pocketed entities, that LIC is only limited to those more commonly perceived as terrorists, i.e., car bombers, hijackers, etc.; however, paid rioters, looters, and those termed by the media as “violent protesters,” are practicing LIC. Worse, labor unions have been getting away with LIC since 1892 and the Homestead Strike. As a point of fact, K-12 educators will only teach the labor union’s side of the story during the Industrial Revolution, leaving out the capitalists providing jobs, businesses that did not need, or want, government intrusion, and the continued depravity the labor unions continually inflict upon America. Just for the record, in 1991 alone, 4400 acts of violence were committed by labor unions.
Consider this for a moment, Americans generally despise violence for economic gains; but, due to LIC in K-12 education, the labor unions get special treatment before the law on committing violence. Imagine for a moment how ugly the media would scream if the KKK dropped nails, broke glass, destroyed property without regard to a minority-owned business. Oh, wait a minute; we know what the media would do, nothing! See, when politically correct rage occurs, even when it is a minority on minority, the press closes their mouths or pitches in! The world saw this in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, Florida, and so many other riots, politely termed “peaceful protests” by the media!
LIC and the Law
I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice. LIC being punishable under a military court is founded in the Civil War, and President Lincoln desired to regulate the behavior of Union troops and show proper deferment to enemy troops. While this legal precedent goes further back, the legal precedent begins with President Lincoln in the US. Controlling troops’ behavior led to the Genocide Convention of 1948, where genocide was created. A legal standard was set for controlling and describing proper behavior during a conflict and enforceable by third parties. Hence the reason why, and for, international courts to bring charges against countries and leaders of countries who commit genocide. Unfortunately, even with the United Nations “maintaining neutrality,” enforcement of genocide continues to be problematic.
However, the point is clear, commit acts of LIC, and you do not face a civilian court and judge; you face a military tribunal. The legal precedent for handling LIC by military tribunal further clarifies that those violent protesters and labor union members using LIC to commit acts of violence are deserving of the label, domestic terrorist. As a terrorist, those using LIC, including those paying for LIC, lose their US Constitutional Rights, face a military tribunal, and held without Habeas Corpus. Terrorists do not deserve and have rejected their US Constitutional Rights upon paying for or committing violent LIC actions. According to the legal dictionary, Habeas Corpus “is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.” If US Troops must follow the Geneva Convention during peace and war, then those paying for or committing LIC are also bound, especially by Article 3:
“… Each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum … [to] persons taking no part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause [certain minimum rights to ensure that they] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”
Since those involved in LIC are terrorists and like criminals, they do not adhere to the law. The international community should be exerting pressure to capture, hold, and try the individuals involved in LIC anywhere in the world. For example, Cuba is currently holding a leader of BLM, an internal terrorist organization with roots in Marxism-Leninism. Other people have found safe haven in the international community and need to answer for their criminal and terrorist activities. However, since the American government refuses to label paid agitators as the internal terrorists they are, the criminal justice system will continue to be violated. Those guilty of LIC are allowed to continue their licentious ways to the detriment of America.
Labor unions hide behind the lawyers and the criminal justice system to game and play LIC against everyone they consider an enemy. ANTIFA, BLM, and every other paid agitator group in America burning, looting, rioting, and “protesting” need to be labeled what they are, terrorists. Their actions need to be classified correctly as acts of terrorism. A military tribunal called to investigate funding sources and hold accountable those paying and those committing terrorist violence in America. There is no difference between a terrorist in the IRA, a terrorist in Afghanistan, and a “protestor” terrorist in Portland, Oregon. America, we need to understand LIC, and then we need to apply legal precedence to fix the situation America currently finds herself in!
© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.