Horizontal escalation

Horizontal escalation is the process by which conflicts are heightened through geographical expansion with reasoning including diplomatic, economic, informational, and military components. This also includes international intervention as well as the geographical widening of combat operations. Horizontal escalation is a direct contrast to vertical escalation which employs types of weapons not previously used in the conflict. That type of escalation also allows attacking new types of targets in order to have an upper hand to the other combatant.
The word escalation was used for a variety of different facets, but it was not until the year 1973 that the American Heritage Dictionary related the term to military events of increasing scope and intensity.
During the Cold War, the risks associated with using escalation were much broader and more diverse, due to the intensity of the current world events. Counterinsurgency and counter-terrorist operations were very prone to using horizontal escalation as a means of defense. Those two types of warfare are more likely to lead to horizontal escalation, because the area of conflict widens in efforts to eliminate enemy holdings or to punish other parties that support their enemy. In an era of such high intensity, in order to gain an upper hand, horizontal escalation was implemented.
Escalation in depth.
There are many aspects associated with escalation, thus making it a difficult concept to comprehend. Rightly so, we can begin to encompass its many form through its different ideas, while also trying to understand the motives behind escalation and the mechanisms of manifestation. The most recognized form of escalation is deliberate escalation, which is carried out for instrumental reasons. Deliberate escalation entails a combatant deliberately increasing the intensity of the operation to gain an advantage. This advantage sets in motion the idea that the one side that chooses to give up escalating first, loses. This sends the signal to the enemy that they are willing to overcome anything to have the lead or that the enemy's previous attempt to gain control shall be punished. Deliberate escalation demands actions to be taken one after another. There is intention from both sides to become the last man standing. In order to have the upper hand in deliberate escalation, one side needs to focus more of its time and energy on deterrence. Deterrence is the threat of punishment when serious actions are intended, which means if one combatant has the upper-hand in weapons, strategy, and technology, the other side would withhold any future attacks due to the fear of consequences. Deterrence is the way to an end. It sends the statement to the other combatant that one is not only trying to get an advantage, but that one is willing to implement many different blockades or tough punishments, in order to continue prevention of escalation. Deterrence is a way to get into the enemy's mind. It creates the idea that if one were to step out of line, there would be serious consequences for the actions. It puts the cost-risk thinking into perspective, making the route with much less costs to the actions the most favorable outcome. Meaning that during a serious battle that requires much deliberation, the less risky choice will most likely be taken. Another form of escalation is inadvertent escalation, which entails an action being interpreted as deliberate, when the action was meant to be plain and simple. This inadvertent escalation stems from the thresholds and subjective thought of escalation. This form of escalation can be prevented by defining thresholds by both sides of the conflict. If there are clear rules of engagements, any misinterpretations could be prevented, because both sides would know the difference between an actual attack or something much simpler. The third form of escalation is accidental escalation. This happens when individuals make mistakes, such as bombing the wrong location, or when military leaders fail to set the rules of engagement. These accidental risks are hard to eliminate, but one can use effective force management to lessen the risks. Accidental escalation is very problematic, because minor mistakes could eventually lead to the enemy thinking the worst, then one can face much more terrific outcomes like actual warfare.
Dimensions of escalation.
The dimensions of escalation also range from vertical, horizontal, and political. Vertical escalation contains the notion of increasing the intensity of armed conflict, such as creating new weapons not previously used in combat. The United States had a pivotal role in vertical escalation during the development of nuclear weapons during World War II. This development changed all of mankind and had other nations trying to vertically escalate as well, such as the Soviet Union following closely behind with nuclear weapons of their own. Vertical escalation has the means to end war, but it usually just results in another nation trying to play catch up. The reason for nuclear weapons is due to the fear of a neighboring country or a high power nation using the weapons for personal gain. Aside from vertical escalation, we have horizontal escalation that seeks to expand the geographic scope of conflict, such as operating in a territory previously set as a neutral zone. Horizontal escalation could be used to lure an enemy to familiar territory. This familiar territory can mean a significant advantage in the battlefield, breaking the opponents stance in the matter. Horizontal escalation could also be used to create tension within the battles. Meaning, if one were to place nuclear missiles around an enemies known allies, it could create an unsettling environment for the opponent, having them to make or move or forfeit the ally. Political escalation derives its ideas from any leftover categories not suited for previously mentioned escalation methods. This can be the ideas one develops to respond to someone else's, such as what technology to use to develop nuclear weapons and the steps needed to reach the goal. Horizontal escalation means to increase the intensity of conflict, whether to gain objectives or an advantage viewpoint to avoid defeat. If left undisturbed, horizontal escalation could potentially result in a mutually assured destruction, forgetting about the initial problem that lead up to the conflict. The thinking throughout the Cold War made it so the group with the most power, such as the number of nuclear weapons held by the United States compared to the other nations, would deter other combatants from escalating due to the potential catastrophic risks involved. Many challenges faced by the United States had escalation in high regard, because the United States needed to be ready to face any powerful adversary, the United States had to protect regions in which high interest was involved, and lastly the United States had to face many irregular war threats, asking for a new strategy of Horizontal Escalation. This new strategy was implemented by Ronald Reagan in response to the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe. This was done by attacking the Soviet Union or their allies in areas in which the United States had a clear military advantage.
Unilateral escalation.
When strategizing about escalation and the actions surrounding it, the form for which it takes is usually seen as an interactive process in which combatants escalate threats or force in response to the other's actions. This is not always the case though, it can also be unilateral escalation, in which the one escalating the battles does so independently without any interference from the other side. To clarify this point, in 1945 the United States strategically fire-bombed Tokyo to ensure devastating urban decay to prevent Japan from gathering up and setting a foothold to retaliate. This eventually led up to the nuclear age, inadvertently leading with the destruction of Hiroshima, crushing the Japanese economy without any previous change in terms of conflict. A response is usually not warranted, because the combatant's capabilities are much less fearful than what the higher power has in store. This means no matter how much a nation tries to overcome the threat, there will always be something more to stop the action, making it a lose-lose situation. Another aspect of unilateral escalation is that a response may be unattractive to the public eye. This can be largely due to the risks being higher than what the cost ensures, such as violating morals to overcome a problem. The act of retaliating, in Japan's instance, would result in more substantial loss than any real gain. Japan would have to shell out tremendous amounts of resources in order to keep up with the demand of retaliating. If a response is not taken, this makes the escalation unilateral. This way of thinking insures the most powerful nation the capability to have all the power. A unilateral form of escalation is only possible when there is a clear distinction of power between the two combatants. If the two powers are equal in strength, Like the Soviet Union and the United States, a unilateral form of escalation could almost be impossible. This is because both sides of the conflict have the power to continue retaliating. There is almost a mindset instilled in both powerhouses that it is best to continue fighting than to give up to the lesser power. This is where other forms of escalation come into play. When thinking about unilateral escalation, it is best implemented when the higher power knows they will always have an upper hand.
Ronald Reagan's Administration.
United States President Ronald Reagan's administration fully committed the United States in the deterrence of further Soviet aggression in the Persian Gulf Sea. There were a few strategies that were implemented in the Persian Gulf Sea, such as the strategies known as Symmetrical response and Asymmetrical response. Symmetrical response can be defined as a reaction to threats in the attempt of achieving an equally balanced level of power at the exact geographical location, time, and level corresponding to the initial threat. Asymmetrical response has been defined as "Shifting the location or nature of one's reaction onto terrain better suited to the application of one's strength against adversary weakness." This strategy consists of one combatant trying to pull all the strings on familiar territory in order to use the strengths they have acquired in similar situations. President Ronald Reagan's administration quickly favored the Asymmetrical response in the Persian Gulf, however both asymmetrical and symmetrical responses were incorporated in his plan of attack. Not long after President Ronald Reagan took office, his administration strategist reported guidelines for the military stating, "to hit the soviets at their remote and vulnerable outposts in retaliation for any cutoff of Persian Gulf oil." The Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger stated the United States' ability to prevent the Soviets from further escalating in the Persian Gulf complements the ability for the United States to shift or spread the war to other areas. One current idea at the time was "to threaten the Soviet Brigade in Cuba if Moscow or its Surrogates move into the Persian Gulf." If that were to happen then symmetrical response would be put into play and the prospects of symmetrical response were viewed as negative, because the Soviets Geographical advantage complemented with their enormous number of ground forces.
One year later, the First Defense made a statement that carried over the same attitude as Reagan's administration had during the Gulf War. If the Soviet military made any advances in the Persian Gulf then the United States must have the capability to use military in the Persian Gulf, Cuba, Libya, Vietnam, or Asian territory in the Soviet Union; making the Soviet Union's homeland a possible target for horizontal escalation.
From this evidence, it can be argued that the goal of Horizontal Escalation is to terminate something in a way that would hurt the Soviets and give the United States an advantage or is it to hold something valuable for ransom to make the Soviets comply with the terms of the United States? To answer these questions, we must first understand that Soviet Union lacked military support in the Persian Gulf Sea and had most of their military positioned in the west. The Soviet Union's military placed in the west was a compensation tool used for the loss of access to the Persian Gulf oil. Therefore, the United States would use Horizontal Escalation by placing more military forces in the Persian Gulf to force the Soviet Union to redeploy its military there, by making the Soviet Union shift its forces back out into the Persian Gulf. This would make Soviet positions in Western Europe more vulnerable to attack and easier to be taken over by the United States military forces. It essentially forces the opponent to space out its military, which in turn makes it easier for you to attack. For the United States, it meant they were now capable of making conventional defense mechanisms in the West.
Horizontal escalation could also be used to essentially fix the Soviet forces at a specific location to prevent them from placing reinforcements at the desired location of attack. However, horizontal escalation will only turn out well, if there is a respectable enough bargaining chip like that of the Persian Gulf oil; essentially how valuable is the territory/object to your opponent? However, it was not the United States Navy that dictated where the Soviet Union positioned its forces. It was primarily Chinas forces that dictated where the Soviet Union's military went.
It's questioned when should the United States start using horizontal escalation and the answer is the Reagan five-year defense plan. Ronald Reagan's five-year defense plan would allow the United States to build up its military large enough to have enough forces in both Persian Gulf and the west forcing the Soviet Union to redeploy its forces in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan's five-year plan increased the possibly of success for horizontal escalation and the return meant the United States military success in the west improved allowing them to further their progression. However, Ronald Reagan's plan will only work if the Soviet Union's military reached a ceiling or peak to their Military buildup. While the Soviet Union continued to deny any limits on how large their military could grow, the United States kept building its military with Ronald Reagan's five-year plan and the U.S combined both horizontal escalation and Reagan's five-year plan in attempts to cap the Soviet Union's military growth. This would put a cap on the Soviet Union's military, once their military became spread out and an enormous amount of money was added by the Soviet Union to move and deploy more troops.
Horizontal targets can be hard to identify if you do not know the value your opponent places on an object, territory, or hostages. The United States faced a difficult task identifying what the Soviet Union valued enough for the U.S to achieve the desired effect on the Soviet Union. However, it was important not to choose a target of great value to the Soviet Union, which might lead to them using nuclear weapons. This left the United States with the open question of whether attacking Soviets fleets in their home waters would be the most effect method for securing communications in the Western sea. Even if such offensive navy operations were the best option, it would still cause extremely high risks for the Soviet Union to use nuclear weapons based not solely on U.S navy ships reaching Soviet territory, but, also because it would be almost impossible for the U.S Navy to avoid sinking "Soviet strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)." Hence if the U.S used only conventional methods in attempts to gain sea control, the Soviet Union might not see it as "conventional sea control," but rather as a forerunner to nuclear attack, also known as damage limiting nuclear first strikes. Even with a clear goal for horizontal escalation, it is unclear how to exactly determine what an appropriate target is. Not having an idea of where or what to attack, escalation is a difficult concept to grasp in the heat of war. One wrong move, one false alarm, and the end result could mean nuclear war.
Strategic misstep.
The Reagan Administration's naval buildup is important for the overall objective of deterring the Soviet Union in Europe and the American's interest due to military escalation of nuclear weapons. The Maritime Strategy is the blueprint for the U.S. Navy to mass-produce 600 ships against fighting in a global war against the Soviet Union. The U.S. Navy believes that the buildup is the key for the protection of the American people and their close relation to Europe. The main idea is to prevent the Soviet's threat to NATO and is extremely important to the American's military. The Maritime Strategy is to gain control in the sea and have the range to launch missiles or air strikes into enemy territory. Horizontal escalation was one of the main tenets of the overall defense policy of the early Reagan Administration. The horizontal escalation discussed in its position is to build large number of carriers and have the capability to eliminate threats on both land and water.
Conventional deterrence is a method to discouraging the other side to engage in war due to the escalation of a nuclear exchange. The 4 main keys parts to conventional deterrence is one, broken down into one side believing that they can make a quick victory when striking first. The second part is the risk involved going to war and the pressure of not talking any military action. The third part is the mathematical calculation of the degree of crisis stability. The ability to make prediction on the battlefield and the effects it has on the opposing side. The last part is the history of the navies role in war. When Germany decided to execute the Schlieffen Plan in July 1914 and another in plan in Fall of 1939 and 1940 which result of France falling. The evidence from these cases shows that calculations regarding the naval balance did not play an important role in the decision for war.
One impact position is called the direct naval impact were sea control is about stopping the Soviets from disrupting the flow of military goods from the United States to Europe. One way to achieve this strategy is by launching an amphibious attack close to shore which direct the Soviet's attention and decrease the possibility of winning the war. With the Navy, the United States could also use carriers to launch air attacks which might win the war for NATO. Another position is the horizontal escalation in relation to the Navy is building many carriers that would have a direct impact to the Soviets. Horizontal escalation, in other words, involves simultaneous operations around the world, while the other two call for sequential operations (which is shorthand for concentrating first on the European theater).
The Maritime Strategy is difficult to describe since the Navy was unclear of their objectives during the beginning of the Reagan Administration. While the details of this strategy were being developed, the goals were the direct naval impact, horizontal escalation, offensive sea control, and counterforce coercion. Horizontal escalation was one of the main tenets of the overall defense policy of the early Reagan Administration. The idea was not popular with the public because it reduces the American forces in Europe and American's commitment to fight.
Theorists.
In the early days of the war, commanders did not question the mechanics of escalation, but they lacked a concrete model to follow. The lack of a concret model made it so that it was difficult to understand the pentameters of escalating war.
Herman Kahn.
It was not until 1965 when Herman Kahn created a theory called the escalation ladder. The categories of horizontal escalation can also be applied to a similar theory called, the vertical dimension of escalation. This theory has three categories:
Compound and Widen Escalation.
These two levels include having the conflict expand out of the general space and increasing the space for operations in the local area.
Increase Intensity.
This level includes logistical attacks, usage of nuclear weapons, and attacking cities.
Kahn's model was influential because it was the first type of model for escalation.
Ole Holsti.
Ole Holsti studied escalation from a psychological point of view. His view of escalation dealt with elements of communication and the stresses created by that conflict. He found the following number of things happened: (1) that as stress increased so did the volume, (2) as stress increased the channels of communication are either increased or new forms of communicating are found. Alternatives are also a form of escalation Holsti studied and found that it could be broken down into 3 categories: choice, closed, and necessity.
Choice.
The chosen alternative was selected on merit above other viable alternatives
Closed.
The specific alternative is not viable.
Necessity.
This alternative is the escalation operative, as the decision is made due to the perception that there are no other available options. The alternative is an outcome of the issues dealing with the crisis and dealing with the amount of time the cause of stress has been around.
Time is the main component to most of Holsti's studies dealing with this issue and found the following. As the pressure of time increases so does the seeking of alternatives. If the search is not producing many results, then the amount of alternative considered is greatly diminished. When this happens there is a greater likelihood that a "false alarm will be converted to war"
Richard Smoke.
The man known as Richard Smoke was able to expand upon many of the existing concepts in his book entitled War: Controlling Escalation. Richard Smoke found that escalation was the product of crossing salient lines, either during a crisis or afterward. He noted that "as means are increased to achieve the original objective (end), so does the perceived value of that objective also rise" from there he was able to come up with key themes. Smoke found that the fear was the only way to control escalation. In his book, he included images of escalation including:
Actor images.
Which is a unilateral act and includes decision cycles that control conflict. When the opposing side takes action, the conflict does not rise.
Phenomenal image.
This concept known as phenomenal image naturally occurs when wars expand to greater instances, and is found to be the most common concept associated with escalation.
Reciprocal escalation.
Another concept associated with escalation and also one of two subsections found in phenomenal images, reciprocal escalation happens when an escalatory action or plan is carried out and executed only once.
Cyclical-sequence.
The other of the two subsections found in phenomenal images, cyclical-sequence is a concept in which multiple escalation actions or thought processes that lead to different plans are carried out. This is referred to as action-response cycles.
Examples.
Due to an unclear division between different types of escalation, some attacks can be classified as horizontal, vertical, or both.