What is LIC?
Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is the official name for when individuals or governments hire intermediaries to conduct violent operations from a secure position. 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 depravations 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 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].
Lt. Colonel Alan J. Tinder wrote a paper for the Air War College in 1990 titled: “Low-Intensity Conflict.” I have learned much from the Colonel and benchmarked this principle to more thoroughly understand LIC, recognize LIC, and detail LIC for others. The other compelling source is L. C. Green’s paper on “Low-Intensity Conflict and the Law.” I aim to synthesize this information into a manageable topic and aid understanding. Let me state emphatically that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leadership’s actions are nothing short of LIC where employees and veterans/customers are concerned.
Regularly, the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) reports on a comprehensive healthcare inspection of a VHA facility, reports on employee morale in the VBA, or sum analysis of an employee or customer surveys, and include in the report a fairly descriptive, yet starkly utilitarian phrase, “reduce staff feelings of moral distress at work.” Generally, the efforts to reduce “moral distress” is left to an underling, an assistant, or a person for whom this is a secondary or collateral duty and is not considered important or relevant.
Do the actions of a leader represent complicity in creating moral distress fit the general definition of LIC? Absolutely. Consider that the leader sets the culture through actions, words, and behaviors, which originate in the thoughts and feelings of the leader. Correcting moral distress is pawned off on a junior staff member as a collateral duty, another method for displaying disrespect and communicating principles of abuse to employees. But there is no physical violence; how does this apply to LIC? Aren’t dead veterans’ examples enough of violent tendencies to justify the definition of LIC? The VA leader operates from a place of security, exemplifies the culture they deem acceptable, and then works through minions to achieve a “to achieve the political, social, economic, or psychological objective.”
Never forget these two critical points in the description of LIC:
“Often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures.”
“LIC has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict.”
At the VA, the leadership calls their example politics; keeping your position or advancing is economical, and the psychological pressure to conform is palpable. All fundamental keys to conducting LIC against veterans, taxpayers, dependents, and non-conforming employees. Multiple times Congress has held hearings and listened to how the VA Leadership exacted revenge and retaliation upon those who reported problems to the VA-OIG, their elected congressional leaders, and other investigative parties. Feel free to peruse some of these hearings; you will hear victims relating physical, economic, and mental abuse, and the VA leadership never takes action. Elected officials never scrutinize and hold accountable those executing LIC, and the victims are victimized a second time.
Want another indicator that LIC is being practiced, the VA-OIG, after learning there are problems with moral distress at work, makes the following to slide the issues under the proverbial rub:
“The OIG’s review of the medical center … did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors.”
Signifying that even though the VA-OIG found moral distress is affecting and influencing employee behavior, the VA considers employee moral distress not an “organizational risk factor.” What does an employee who feels morally distressed do in performing their duties? Delay patients’ appointments, make mistakes on medication shipped, slow walk any responsibility to make things more complicated and take longer than they should. Does any of these actions sound familiar; they should, for this is the standard operating procedure for VA employees.
As reported previously, while I worked at the VA, I had intimate observations of what morally distressed employees do. When I wrote to the VA-OIG, I was informed that since I had my employment terminated, I could not be a whistleblower and get my job back. Plus, what I reported could not be actioned because it did not apply. How’s that for protecting the guilty? The VA Leadership is writing procedures and policies to target anyone and everyone who would report problems and seek help. An employee physically assaulted me; the camera mysteriously broke when I reported it, so no evidence was available. Who was at fault? Me; the assistant director promoted the attacker, and I got ostracized. The attacking employee took moral distress to new heights after this incident, and anyone who reported their behavior felt the wrath of the attacker and the VA leadership at the Albuquerque VAMC.
What is horrendous, this is not an isolated incident. What happened to me frequently repeats daily across every VA office. LIC is the overarching term, LIC is the behaviors named, and LIC is what the taxpayers are forced to pay for, all at the expense of veterans, dependents, and employees who see, know, and can do nothing. Repetitions of moral distress in employees, reported by the VA-OIG, are more than 20 just in 2022. The problem is cultural, and the elected officials desperately need to begin doing their second job, scrutinizing the executive branch and holding people accountable, including canceling the retirement packages of those practicing LIC.
Before someone tries to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is NOT political. LIC is never political, just as LIC is never religious, never racist, not sexist, or any other distinction. These distinctions are excuses, and the reasons do not justify the means for being violent. The leadership at the VA, and many other government agencies, have found that abusing the taxpayer pays well, provides protection, and allows them to exercise dominion to their heart’s content, all with the power of government to justify their deeds.
Do you realize that the VA-OIG has a metric for measuring moral distress, and the only time the VA-OIG reports moral distress among employees is when the results are higher than national averages? How scary is that to ponder? The problem is so prevalent that it only warrants reporting when it exceeds the norm. Thus, moral distress is declared less frequently when the average worsens. Official protection for LIC is provided by LIC, increasing, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.
I have read reports where the moral distress has worsened from year to year. The same leaders exacerbating the problem of employee moral distress are promoted and moved instead of reprimanded, punished, or fired. One of the VA-OIG reports is particularly heinous in hiding moral distress in employees.
“Selected employee survey responses demonstrated satisfaction with leadership and maintenance of an environment where staff felt respected and discrimination was not tolerated. Patient experience survey data implied general satisfaction with the outpatient care provided; however, leaders had opportunities to improve inpatient care satisfaction [emphasis mine].”
Mark Twain is oft quoted as stating, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” How much more valid are these words when results are “selected,” “cherry-picked,” or allowed to “imply generalities?” Those who engage in LIC are criminals, they are comparable to terrorists, and they have infiltrated the bureaucratic halls of government. Employing government power, they form unholy unions with social media outlets and media companies to further silence and abuse, all while increasing protection.
Where does it end? How do we put paid to the tyranny?
It ends when ordinary people decide they have had enough. Ending the LIC-powered tyranny requires nothing more than elected officials scrutinizing the government and doing the jobs they swore to commit. No violence, problematic or arduous tasks, merely following established law and doing the jobs we elected them to accomplish. LIC is always destroyed when the citizens being oppressed stand up for their rights and demand the bullies, tyrants, and fiends cease and desist!
Thomas Paine, writing in “Common Sense,” discussed simplicity, stating:
“I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered.”
The American government was established on simplicity, and the US Constitution is a simple document. Using Thomas Paine’s pattern, the disorder in the government is simple to correct; all we need are people insisting that the infection is terminated. Using the systems established in the US Constitution, the US government can be brought to heel, the rot removed, and justice can be delivered to those tyrants employing LIC for personal gain and political profit. LIC is happening in every government agency, and it is time for change to begin. Where are the politicians willing to do the job we elected them to perform?
Mark Twain provides the final word, “The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two.” From artistic villainy to LIC is not an arduous shift, merely the extension of abuse of power to a larger audience. Learn, choose, and then make your voice known through elections and peaceful assembly for redress per the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.
There comes the point where every person reaches their penultimate point. They can take no more, stand no more, and allow no more abuses to be heaped upon them by others. On 30 August 2021, when 
I love fried chicken, watermelon, BBQ ribs, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on white bread. I have been eating this way my entire life; I will not change just because some dweeb is projecting their racism onto food. Food cannot and should never be labeled as “racist.” I love grits and fried eggs, with cheese and gravy, or biscuits and hashbrowns. I am a huge fan of fried okra and pork. I enjoy a bowl of hominy and honey with a bit of butter and cornbread. Bring on the food, leave the politics on the porch!
There is no such thing as a violent protest. You are either protesting (peacefully) after having obtained the proper permits and in accordance with the laws, or you are terrorists hell-bent on destroying society. There is no middle ground, and I refuse to bend on this issue, regardless of the media’s claims! When you begin looting, burning, acting violently, this is the time to call in the military. The rules of engagement include returning violence equal to or greater than the violence shown to restore law and order: no police, military response, and open fire. Law and order is the police’s job. Terrorism is the military’s job, and those who survive receive a terrorist trial in a military tribunal.
Nancy, you sent the military to Afghanistan. You continued to send the military to Afghanistan as political decisions. You hold the blood of the slain, the sweat of the military sacrifice, and the tears of the families, and you cannot ever shake this responsibility! For you to act in such a deplorable manner is cause for removal and public shaming, at a minimum. But with your ego and arrogance, simple public shaming will not teach the lesson you need to learn. Thus, Nancy, I hope to be there in person when a judge hands down a sentence of guilty, and pronounces your punishment of community service in distinctive clothing, wearing a sandwich board declaring your crimes, and watch you pull weeds on a chain gang, scrubbing graffiti, and picking trash. Then, maybe, will the enormity of your crimes come home to you!
Most societies fail because leaders have violated the core fundamental principles those societies were built upon. The people have lost the way to hold the leaders accountable to the fundamental principles that originally built the society. In modern societies, these principles are codified laws from founding national documents, and holding the leaders accountable would involve lawyers and judges, as well as time and other leaders committed to holding together the system to ensure those who broke the system are held liable and accountable before the law, and not a mob.
What do you want most? What government is most important to you? Is your government system sufficiently powerful enough a motivator to propel you to action to save it and pass it along to the next generation? America has had leaders who have been quoted as saying something to the effect of, “The blood of current generations must renew the tree of liberty to remain free.” What will you sacrifice for liberty today, for your children to experience freedom tomorrow?
Act with haste, prepare with confidence, and move with speed. Get loud! Stand like a rock! I was told standing is not an activity. The person proclaiming that has never stood still and faced down an enemy, or they would know just how arduous standing can be! Seek learning through study, discussion, questions, and faith. Seeking learning through faith means that you will actively believe until you can prove otherwise, even if it means waiting patiently for a while to learn more.
I prefer not to quote radical far right, far left, or emotionally driven people. However, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity have made similar comments over the past 10-days that have resonated with me: any government’s purpose is to look after their people. There is no higher duty! In Afghanistan, Britain and France have sent special forces, heavily armed convoys, rescued their citizens and closed their embassies in good order. America created a middle-of-the-night Charlie-Foxtrot for the world to handle, then left her citizens to barter with their lives. Representing cowardice and treason most vile before an enemy most intolerant!
To our allies, but more importantly to our enemies, America is not our government! We might be saddled by this deleterious administration through fraud and deception, we might have too many weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, no-spine bureaucrats in positions of power, but they do NOT represent AMERICA! You will find AMERICA is a whole lot different than what you see surrendering on TV. Do not test us, especially we, 
Representative Deb Haaland (D) sent out an email while a US House of Representatives member claimed America is a “Constitutional Democracy.” I will endeavor to correct this confusion using simple terms; for Representative Haaland’s benefit, please allow me to elaborate. Along the way, let us explore a few connected topics, including the plasticization of words and how that breeds tyranny.
Starting in the 1930s, during the “Great Depression,” changes were made to America’s methods of governance by the President, a willing media, and sycophants in the Senate and House. Establishing the Federal and State Government’s ability to rule by largess; picking winners and losers based upon obeisance to a bureaucrat’s whims, wishes, and will. Reich lays out this history, walks the reader through the laws, and makes the case that because of democratic rule America’s Republic has been reduced to a feudal system where the government decides who gets the largess and who does not. With the Federal and State Governments making these decisions, businesses do not compete fairly upon their own merits but upon how much taxpayer money they can bamboozle from Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, the entire system hinges upon reducing private property ownership and the freedoms private property allow to feed the ever-hungry beast of Government consumption.
Thus, America needs to demand change through the ballot box, insist that freedom and private property are returned to the people. Those representatives who have no moral center, or cannot serve their constituents from both parties equally, are removed from politics; indefinitely! Since America is a Republic and not a democracy (yet!), the problems in representation can be solved.
Shakespeare (2016) used Hamlet to relate a line that frequently applies, especially when communicating online, “… thou doth protest too much, methinks.” Too often, those intent on misusing words are protesting too much about something. On social media, every communication, every interaction, and every person is a threat to the intellect of the one protesting and must be lorded over, trolled, and publicly shamed. A recent example of this the world witnessed during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, where the judge’s children were physically and verbally assaulted—using a warping of legal rights, guaranteed justification for the assault. A careful review of any newspaper, news broadcast, and many politicians speaking will evidence the plasticization of words to justify actions, e.g., President Clinton, “Depends on what your definition of “is” is.” Words to couch a threat while seeming to be helpful and friendly, or worst of all hide abuses of others through twisted logic. Every time words become disconnected from standard meanings, society crumbles, language becomes useless, and the consequences are multi-generational, which is precisely what transpired in recovering Germany after Hitler’s demise.
I had the great personal pleasure of speaking to a senior citizen from Germany who lived through Hitler’s oppression and the recovery of Germany post-WWII, and the person I spoke with affirmed the most challenging social problem was relearning words and definitions to communicate without the taint of Hitler’s Germanic Language. Hence, we can draw several lessons from this experience; language is trained. It can be retrained; relearning language is a social problem fixed through social interactions and personal knowledge, and personal responsibility and accountability remain pre-eminent in communicating correctly. Another lesson from my experience, history repeats itself, and those with dastardly designs will always corrupt language to gain the advantage before showing their true colors as tyrants. Every single despot in recorded history has employed plastic language to lull the population into acquiescence before demanding loyalty and destroying that civilization, society, or culture.
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.
As a topic I write extensively about, some may ask, “Why does he continue writing about this topic?” The answer can be found in Portland, Oregon, most any night, where the rioters and looters are screaming, breaking the law, and getting away with this anarchy because it is politically acceptable to someone’s personal desires.
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 barbarous 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 depravations 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:
Consider the lie of climate change. Psychological and social controls are exerted through “Climate Change Science Pogroms.” What is the aim; achieve mass hysteria about the climate while defying and denying logic and science, preaching social changes that empower the government while stealing liberty and freedom. 
LIC is dangerous; not recognizing where and when LIC is being practiced is more dangerous still. Ask yourself, why did the US President quadruple the number of immigrants pouring through the southern border? The president is using LIC to breed paid agitators against the rightful citizens of America and illegally increase his voting bloc. Why was President Trump denied his rights by Facebook; LIC. By denying a private citizen his First Amendment rights to social media, Facebook can show a “strong and courageous” stand against conservative speech! The rules have changed, if you do not understand LIC, you will lose, and America will continue to be lost.
Up until May 2020, the following aspect of LIC was generally accepted:
Reference:
The next part of the LIC requirement to prove the case of labor unions being terrorists comes directly from the definition of LIC. “… Often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency.” Any Google search on the terms ‘labor unions and violence’ will pull down millions of hits on the correlation between labor unions and their violent beginnings, violent actions, and current levels of violence towards non-union members, non-union political leaders, non-union lawyers, and other members of society who speak against union membership and the compulsory dues. Political leaders, judges, and high-ranking members of society all turn a blind eye to the violence committed by unions. This violence is always organized, sanctioned by the highest leaders in the union organization, and applauded by these same leaders.
DNC-Consulting 