Protection of civilians - military planning scenarios and implications

Protection of civilians has emerged as a principal objective in many contemporary operations. However, protection of civilians is no longer simply about avoiding ‘collateral damage’ or assisting with the delivery of humanitarian aid. In today’s wars amongst the people, military forces are increasingly expected to protect civilians from threats of physical violence that arise from perpetrators who deliberately target them and are responsible for the majority of casualties. There is, however, a wide range of perpetrators who attack civilians for entirely different reasons and in different ways. This report identifies and describes seven generic scenarios, which seek to capture the range of situations in which military forces may be deployed and expected to protect civilians. The scenarios are meant to help military staffs identify the particular nature of threat facing civilians and the military responses that are most likely to work. Each generic scenario is described on basis of five parameters that examine different aspects of possible perpetrators: (1) their strategic rationale for attacking civilians in the first place; (2) the types of actor the perpetrators are likely to be, (3) the strategies and tactics they employ, (4) the capabilities they are likely to require in doing so, and (5) the expected outcome when perpetrators succeed. The first parameter (rationale) is used to categories the scenarios, because it is the perpetrator’s motivation that first and foremost will determine the nature of threat to civilians. The seven military planning scenarios described in this report are: • GENOCIDE, where perpetrators seek to exterminate a certain communal group. • ETHNIC CLEANSING, where perpetrators seek to expel a certain communal group. • REGIME CRACKDOWN, where regimes use violence to repress any resistance. • POST-CONFLICT REVENGE, where individuals or mobs take revenge for past crimes. • COMMUNAL CONFLICT, where whole communities seek both to avenge a previous round of violence and to deter further retaliation, as a means of protecting themselves. • PREDATORY VIOLENCE, where perpetrators exploit civilians to survive or for profit. • INSURGENCY, where insurgents target civilians as a means to undermine other actors. It is argued that the role of military force in protecting civilians is likely to be decisive or important in the majority of situations where civilians are deliberately targeted, albeit the ways in which force can be used with utility will vary greatly. A main finding is that denying freedom of movement for the military units executing violence against civilians on the ground will be the most effective response, because it is the only requirement that perpetrators in all scenarios will be critically dependent on. Another finding is that airpower alone can play a significant role in protecting civilians during REGIME CRACKDOWNS, but largely will be unable to deny perpetrators the ability to attack in other scenarios. Finally, despite the emphasis on civilian security in recent population-centric counterinsurgency doctrines, the potential utility of military force in protecting civilians during classic INSURGENCIES is limited and not necessarily compatible with defeating insurgents. Traditional counterinsurgency approaches will have more utility in terms of protecting civilians against rebel groups who do not have clear political objectives.