Swords into Plowshares: Postconflict Arms Management

US ARMS MANAGEMENT operations since World War II involved actions conducted after the cessation of hostilities to limit, reduce, abolish, neutralize or destroy weapons and equipment of real or potential military value. While most US efforts in arms management occurred as part of military force demobilization, Americans have participated in many missions whose objectives varied from the complete elimination of weapons, equipment, organizations and industrial infrastructure to limiting the presence of specific types of weapons in an area of operations (AO). An analysis of the common challenges and issues forces faced in planning, preparing and executing arms management reveals consistently important trends and lessons learned relevant to future operations. American military experience suggests there are three distinct types of arms management distinguished by the objectives, constraints and conditions under which operations are conducted. A force that has achieved decisive victory initiates disarmament. An operation's objective is to destroy the defeated enemy's capability to wage war. The victor imposes conditions. The US occupation of Germany, Austria and Japan after World War II and postconflict activities during Operations Urgent Fury and Just Cause are examples of such operations. Under treaty implementation, parties agree to limit, reduce or eliminate arms as part of an overall political settlement. They are usually established by protocols (UN resolutions) and serve to limit weapon systems from specified areas (no-fly zones). Arms management serves primarily as a confidence-building measure to reinforce and supplement a negotiated peace. In these operations. arms managers are bound strictly by the conditions treaties and protocols establish. Objectives could range from demobilizing forces to limiting weapons from specified areas. Examples of US operations include Desert Storm, Uphold Democracy , Joint Endeavor. and US participation in UN peacekeeping (PK) missions in Cambodia. Actions during ongoing conflicts employ coercive action to disarm or restrict warring factions in an operational environment that lacks area-wide security or complete political settlement. The objective is to provide security as a precursor to humanitarian relief efforts and peace negotiations. The implementing force's (IF's) capabilities largely determine these operations scope. Objectives often change rapidly and frequently and vary to accommodate the unique circumstances of different zones within the AO. Arguably, the Korean War and Vietnam could be classified as "actions during ongoing conflicts. " The US-led UN Task Force (UNITAF) in Somalia is another example. Successful operations consist of four phases that should be considered as a basic framework for planning, preparing and executing arms management. The US military's experience demonstrates that each phase of arms management includes a number of essential specified tasks that must be completed. / PHASE I: Prepare an Area for Arms Management This phase includes all activities related to planning and preparation. Planning. Planning is the most essential task in the operation's initial phase. In April 1944, in the European Theater during World War II, the United States completed its first draft study of disarmament requirements. Nearly a year before V-E Day, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) produced a comprehensive plan to address the entire theater's needs. SHAEF's guidance is particularly instructive since disarming German forces proved to be an extremely complex challenge.l Complicating SHAEF's challenge was the operation's immense scope and the multiple military commands involved. To further muddle the problem, SHEAF found it impossible to predict exactly what the conflict's end state would look like when the disarmament process began. For example, initial planning for Austria assumed US and British forces from Italy would occupy the country. …