Rethinking transitions: finding the pathway from military to community security

More effective ways of defining and managing the transition from military-provided security to community-oriented policing and safety was the theme examined last month at an event hosted by Saferworld, the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI), Massey University and the Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance in Washington. Saferworld’s Washington Associate David Alpher explores the discussion that took place and why community security is a critical part of transitional security engagements.

As we speak, the United States is preparing to reduce its presence to a skeleton crew in Afghanistan after 13 years of uninterrupted warfare. Following the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, the Afghanistan drawdown may bring the two major US engagements of recent times as close to an end as we are likely to see anytime soon. However, given that the overall number of potential US engagements is unlikely to decrease, the possibility of military engagement is, worryingly, expanding. That engagement probably won’t look like the same open warfare we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, but will instead take the form of support for transitions from widespread instability and active conflict towards more peaceful and stable societies.

Planners of these future engagements are confronted with a problem—the US does war well, and through technical and training superiority it dominates the modern battlefield. However, the US has far less of a successful track record at facilitating transitions from war to peace. This is not for lack of experience in transitional security engagements—however if we examine those interventions closely, we are forced to confront the fact that most of those countries are also now on a parallel list of countries at risk of further instability and, potentially, repeated intervention. On this list are places such as Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan (before the US has even disengaged entirely). In response to this worrying trend, and in search of an improved model for transitional security, Saferworld’s US office hosted a panel to examine not just whether US technical plans for transition were well implemented, but whether planners had the right starting point at all.

A number of factors make it difficult for the US to change operational or policy direction on overseas interventions: the established US strategic infrastructure, so heavily geared towards fighting wars; the legacy of the 9/11 attacks; and the sheer size and scope of investment in those subsequent engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq—as well as an expanding and ever-more diverse engagement with violent extremism across the globe. Because of that inertia, policy evaluations of past engagements have focused on technical programmatic changes but have lacked the conceptual reboot that this panel proposed.

Speakers at the event included Dr. Tom Matyock and Karen Finkenbinder of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI), Major Keith Smith of the Joint Center for Security Force Assistance, and Saferworld’s Conflict and Security Policy Advisor Will Bennett. Central to the panel’s analysis were two major aspects of US intervention policy: first, the 2006 expansion of the US army phases of conflict planning doctrine to include a ‘phase zero’, which effectively brought even peacetime diplomatic and development work under military direction; and second, the heavy reliance on ‘train-and-equip’ methodology. Both of these approaches reduce the intricacies of any conflict to pre-determined linear phases and transition points in order to impose order on what the security strategy planners see as chaos. The latter predicates success entirely on building top-down political and security institutions that are often disconnected from, or worse may actually fuel, the unique problems in an unstable area.

Presenting first, Dr. Matyock challenged the definition of conflict that focuses on “the moment where violence breaks out”, and stressed conflict as nothing more than a social, political and developmental process; one which inevitably brings change but is not inevitably violent. Saferworld’s Will Bennett then presented our new handbook on community security, stating that putting people’s—not planners’—needs at the centre of security policy and programming is critical if grievances that may eventually turn violent are to be addressed proactively as part of an upstream conflict prevention approach allowing for flexible, responsive engagement.

Karen Finkenbinder and Major Smith then pointed out that the definition of transitional security currently used within US doctrine fails to align with the broader understanding of either security or conflict as discussed by the panellists. American policy instead focuses heavily on defining any given situation through the lens of military planning needs, rather than through an understanding of the situation through the eyes of those who live through it on a daily basis. This in turn creates a predisposition towards militarization of what should be civilian engagement. In addition it opens the US up to a series of policy and operational pitfalls, ranging from carrying out programmes that are neither wanted nor needed by locals, to training and equipping domestic forces that are potentially predatory rather than in the service of local populations.

Community security—and by extension, community policing—is both a process and an end-state. It is a critical part of getting the right map and making sure we are reading it the right way up. It frames the planning around ‘them’ (affected communities) and their security needs, rather than ‘us’ and ours. It reminds us that people’s security, not just state security, is a key requirement for stability and sustainable development. This panel was provocative and was a positive attempt to break the current inertia that is stunting efforts to find effective solutions to complex problems.

David Alpher is Saferworld’s Washington Associate.

This work will continue in two further panels, both in Washington DC. The second, in late June, will explore the themes through case studies of the security transition processes in Northern Ireland and East Timor. The third, in September, will look in more detail at the design of civilian policing structures.

Read more about our work on community security.

“Putting people’s—not planners—needs at the center of security policy and programming is critical”

David Alpher