47
the group) and this coalition takes decisions to deploy troops after an invitation from the host government. Considering the time taken from the deployment of coalition troops, the mission execution and the withdrawal of forces from the DRC after the deployment of MONUC, the military intervention referred to in this research is a protracted foreign military intervention executed by three coalition countries under the name of SADC as a sub-regional body. It is now important to briefly discuss the categories of military intervention.
48
normally involves the deployment of troops, falls in the defence phase of war, whilst the staying in stage falls in the advance and attack phases of war. The getting out stage falls in the withdrawal phase of war.
It should be realised that the grand political aim is transformed into military strategic objectives through the consideration of important factors such as the mission, the decision- making process and the actual timing of the decision to deploy troops for the military intervention. There may be adjustments to these factors of execution depending on the challenges that are faced by troops during all the four phases of intervention and at all levels towards the attainment of the grand objective during the military intervention. It will be in this study’s context to analyse how the SADC intervening countries’ various political aims were synchronized into one coalition political objective executable through a joint coalition task force during the military intervention. Whilst challenges such as the logistical incapacity may influence the decision to withdraw, the attainment of the political aim remains a key factor in determining the withdrawal strategy. This research will also try to make an assessment of the link between the mentioned phases of the military intervention through brief lessons learnt in the analysis of the political aim and military strategy nexus.
Besides the above-mentioned stages, military intervention is also carried out at the massive, medium, limited and occasional levels. A massive military intervention refers to a large-scale deployment of troops and equipment to a regional crisis. In this regard combat troops of a brigade strength (more than 3000 troops), or division strength (more than 6000 troops) and fighting equipment such as battle tanks, artillery and fighter aircraft are all deployed to the operational area through a systematic movement capacity that a nation or a coalition of nations has. This maybe done through sea, air and road troop carriers. The US led coalition’s
49
deployment in Iraq in 2003. A medium scale military intervention entails a medium scale involvement where there is “a considerable willingness to use force and maintain the deployment for a considerable period” (Du Plessis, 2000:28). The deployment of ECOMOG troops during the Sierra Leone Civil war from 1989 to 1996 is a fitting example of a medium scale military intervention. Limited military intervention is basically a low-level engagement of troops “on a temporary basis with a limited willingness to use force” (Du Plessis, 2000:29). The South African Defence Forces (SANDF) and Botswana Defence Forces (BDF)’s intervention in Lesotho can be referred to as a limited military intervention. This is so considering that “Operation Boleas” did not take long, arguably because there was relatively less utilisation of battle tanks and airpower. The occasional level refers to the use of military force, such as air power, for the purpose of only supporting diplomatic and economic involvement (Miller, 1998:75). This level is applicable in situation of evacuation of citizens from abroad as was the case with the French troops prior to the outbreak of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Considering that the coalition troops and equipment were on a medium scale and the deployment was maintained for a considerable period pending the deployment of UN peacekeepers, this study treats the SADC coalition’s military intervention as a medium scale military intervention.
Although scholars such as the behaviourists and traditionalists have taken a significant part in the debate on intervention using operational definitions of intervention that are different in order to address interventionary phenomenon that may be specific on what they want to focus, they seem to use a generally similar definition of the term intervention. From all the definitions explored in this section, it generally depends on the type of action and the instruments used as well as the actors and other factors that several self-explanatory categories can be distinguished, namely, defensive and offensive military intervention,
50
coercive (forcible) and non-coercive (non forcible) military intervention, direct and indirect military intervention, and overt and covert military intervention (Carpenter, 1989:130). For the purposes of this research, the definition of military intervention is formulated as coercive joint military action preceded by a political decision of a state or a group of states operating under the banner or name of a sub-regional grouping. This military action includes the deployment of coalition troops at the invitation or request of the government of a member state in order to assist that state militarily pending a political solution to a given crisis. This definition draws upon the definition given by Du Plessis (2000:4-5) and those definitions given by Rosenau (1969:153-156), Geldenhuys, (1998:6); Bull (1984:1); Barrie, 2000:78) Friedman (1971:40) and Ramses (1994:4). Thus, the military intervention under study will be referred to as overt foreign military intervention of a combative and coercive nature in an interstate conflict.
Having discussed and analysed the definitional debate among scholars as to what military intervention entails, it is important to look briefly at how military intervention has actually evolved over time as this would provide a base for the general rationale in terms of justification for governments’ decisions for the deployment of troops in different conflict settings.