military action and multi-track conflict resolution involving local, regional, and international state and non-state actors, and a broad peace building coalition
or we could go with the 'guns solve everything' approach
(, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 15:43, Share, Reply)
Whats "multi-track conflict resolution"?
Also the local, regional "actors" are currently up to their eyeballs in western jihadists thinking they're doing gods work whilst being incredibly shitty to locals.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 15:56,
Share,
Reply)
Many of the regional actors are not up to their eyeballs in jihadists.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, etc, are still fully functioning states.
The current actions of US and UK have already been based on regional diplomacy with regional actors - e.g. working with the Iraqi government and alongside other powers such as Saudi Arabia in order to use air forces to manage the conflict. Other actors that have been involved are INGOs, such as international charities that have dealt with displaced persons.
The UN, which works in the area, is still functioning.
The Kurds are still a force - and it has been debated whether they should or should not be a regional actor to be recruited in the local conflict management efforts.
(, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 17:20, Share, Reply)
Your idea to make things better in Iraq / Kurdish state is to get Saudi, Israel and Iran involved?
Ok, if your sure....
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 18:37,
Share,
Reply)
Kind of hard
To negotiate a multi track peace process when you've just had your head put in your own lap.
With apologies to 'kinda hard to win their hearts and minds when you're floating face down in the Gulf on Tonkin'
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 16:25,
Share,
Reply)
I'm not really suggesting this idea of peace building, diplomacy, and conflict management. Its what states such as the US and UK are already doing. Its similar to what they tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.
Military force, of which they're engaged, is part of this conflict management - the goal of destroying ISIS is another part of it.
The discourse in the media and amongst the public is what I object to. Its the idea that you only have to kill people in order to solve a problem. Its a discourse that imagines that the people who constitute ISIS were born as Jihadists, and so are indistinguishable from us and very much like Klingons (a race or a virus that only needs to be wiped out in order for everything to be peaceful).
(, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 17:28, Share, Reply)
Its clear that the UK government is making diplomatic, humanitarian, as well as military actions in the area
www.gov.uk/government/news/isil-uk-government-response
Diplomacy and humanitarian efforts during wars and conflicts is something states always do. In WW2, the UK didn't just go out and shoot nazis. The UK worked with the US, USSR, French resistance, German defectors, etc etc. They dropped propaganda from the sky, organised humanitarian aid, destroyed Nazi monuments after the war, worked alongside the US in order to pump economic aid into Germany and the rest of Western Europe, etc etc.
The management of conflict in Europe did not begin and end with just killing Nazis. Clausewitz pointed out that war is not primarily about killing, but about politics.
(, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 17:48, Share, Reply)
What dialogue can you possibly have with psychotic fascists? Seriously
I'm sure the Shia and Kurdish muslims who these wahhabi nazi cunts have been murdering have got lots of time for sitting down, holding hands, and singing combayah whilst the region seeks a "multi-track conflict resolution involving local, regional, and international state and non-state actors, and a broad peace building coalition."
(
Harpago ¯\(°_o)/¯, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 16:33,
Share,
Reply)
the diplomacy would be aimed at what would happen during and after ISIS - but would not be diplomacy with ISIS
when ISIS is destroyed, you will still have people and groups in the area
When Nazi Germany was destroyed, the Allies still took part in diplomacy and peace building. They didn't say 'oh, we've shot a load of nazis and their government's agreed to unconditional peace, so lets pack up our bags and skiddadle'.
You seem to think its either one thing or the other.
(, Sun 23 Nov 2014, 17:11, Share, Reply)