If humanity was a story, there would only be two biologically guaranteed themes: The first is sex, and the second is conflict. Only the latter has developed as a result of mankind's own doing. Conflict has evolved from a primordial soup of barbaric tribal skirmishes to a globally scaled art form. There is a problem however. Since the birth of the modern state in the 19th century, war and domination on an international scale has become increasingly more costly and prevalent.   

The reason for this increase is more simple than one might expect. As a result of 19th century nation building, each modern nation state is characterized by a set of ideals, and is unified ethnically under a government which aims to promote the people’s interest. As a result of this, the ethnically derived nation state has become fundamental in the unification and governing of a people. The destruction or alteration of these governments by external forces leads to a total collapse of the region and establishes a series of critical deficits from which additional conflict will inevitably arise. Governments are accountable for 3 vital functions of society: economic security and opportunity, ethnically derived government, and regional security and stability. As a result of this, it is imperative that during the termination of war, the victor establishes political and military objectives to ensure that after the termination of the conflict, the region is governed by a nation which guarantees these fundamental principles. 

 Terminating a war appropriately with respect to this model eliminates the possibility of further conflict and establishes an enduring peace and a prosperous nation. In contrast, terminating a war with no respect or understanding of these conditions generates instability and tension which will plague the region until these principles are addressed. It is therefore imperative that victorious nations terminate wars based primarily on this model. While these principles are in many ways interdependent on each other, regional security is the most foundational. 

Without regional stability, it is impossible for economic security and ethnically derived government to take root and be stable.  By nature, a nation which loses a war will become greatly unstable. The security forces which once secured the nation against threats foreign and domestic will be crippled or utterly disbanded as a result of the lost conflict. In addition to loss of faith in the government and stresses of rationing, the region will become destabilized. This will in turn generate far reaching problems which plague the region until the root causes are resolved.   

While several situational options may exist, the only universally effective way to stabilize a country is by ensuring the strength of the government. During the first Gulf War, Coalition forces led by the United States aimed only to liberate Kuwait, and therefore allowed the Hussein regime to remain in power. There was no total victory. While the government of Iraq at the time was relatively aggressive and dangerous, it was undeniably stable. The Iraqi military and government remained relatively active and strong after the war and coalition peacekeeping forces were not required to remain in the area after termination of conflict as the region remained stable and insurgency free. The only reason for further conflict during the second Gulf War was an unnecessary American intervention based on poor intelligence and blind retaliation towards the events that unfolded on September 11th, 2001 (Rose, 252).  Essentially, Iraq's ability to maintain its stability after the first Gulf War ensured proper termination in accordance with the proposed model.

In contrast to the first Gulf War, the second Gulf War in 2003 saw the majority Sunni Hussein regime removed from power, and a Shia majority interim government installed in its place. This proved fatal however as a mounting number of Sunni insurgencies (Al Qaeda in Iraq) developed in the power vacuum left by the turmoil. In addition to completely destabilizing the government, the coalition decided to disband the Iraqi Republican Guard, a decision which proved almost fatal to the fledgling country almost immediately. The lack of properly experienced, motivated, and trained security forces exacerbated the insurgency and left Iraq weak to threats of invasion by Iran (Schmidt). This resulted in the need for American occupation of Iraq until 2012, a completely avoidable scenario which resulted in the deaths of thousands and unnecessary spending of trillions of dollars.

While one would imagine that the instability eventually ended after years of the US fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), it simply did not. The United States had still failed to secure the region. The US had failed to establish an effective government and train strong security forces. American forces had essentially “treated” the symptoms of instability by destroying most of AQI, yet had failed to cure the country of its ailments to secure a lasting peace. Following the Arab Spring and Syrian uprising, a new organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) became a major player by capturing swathes of Iraq and Syria and committing to a campaign of jihad against the west. ISIS was fundamentally a rebranding of AQI in Syria (Swidey). If Iraq had been properly stabilized after the American invasion, it is plausible to claim that the current blight to the middle east, ISIS as it is known today could have never developed. A well trained an equipped Iraqi security force could at least potentially have fought ISIS at Syrian border and prevented the massive incursions which led to an annexation of Iraqi lands. Essentially, a lack of security in Iraq only hurt the nation in the long run. It did not conform to the proposed model.

Stability is the most fundamental necessity to securing an effective and lasting peace. During his Nobel lecture, President Obama stated,  

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.  

Without regional stability, it is impossible to establish and grow the other 2 fundamental principles of an enduring peace: economic prosperity and ethnically derived government. Security is often considered an implied condition to securing a lasting peace, however many minor details are overlooked when terminating a war. In the previous examples, a lack of adequate stability created by a lack in security, governmental equality, and basic services stressed the stability of the region to a breaking point. Since these problems have still not been addressed since the initial American invasion in 2003, Iraq and other surrounding regions have been unable to become once again peaceful after the passing of nearly 14 years.   

While regional security and is a fairly straightforward objective, economic security is the most difficult to establish and sustain. Economic security can only be maintained if the region is stable and the victor provides conditions for which the national economy can recover and expand. It is well known that poverty and a poor economy breed conflict. Former minister of development for Sierra Leone, Dr. Kadi Sesay states, "we must have an effective poverty-reduction program. A lot of people believe that poverty is an underlying cause of the war and we need to tackle it if we are to sustain the peace" (Sesay).  Failure to provide a stable economy, economic opportunity, and basic services agitates the people, destabilizing the region and brewing conflict.  

 Referring again to America's 44th president, Obama summarized the function of economic security in securing peace by stating, "A just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want" (Obama). It is evident that people who are economically depressed will take whatever action is necessary to secure resources and prosperity for themselves and their families. True capitalist societies function entirely on this concept and have yet to utterly fail economically. Obama continues to explain the systemic nature of economic security and how it's roots are intertwined with other factors, such as regional security. While these two are intermingling, securing one does not necessarily result in the securing of the other. In that respect, it is inherently difficult to produce economic security after the termination of a conflict. If regional stability can be maintained, it is the victor's responsibility to rebuild the collapsed economy. Several examples exist throughout history where ignorance or adherence to this principle resulted in either additional conflict or cessation of hostilities respectively.  

 After the First World War, the victorious Allies imposed crippling economic burdens on the Weimar Republic. The Treaty of Versailles dictated that Germany accept responsibility for the entire war, and pay 132 billion marks in reparations worth approximately 768 billion USD in today's money (Suddath). The economy of the Weimar Republic was therefore utterly destroyed, as the value of the mark plummeted due to hyperinflation. While some argue that the Weimar economy was recovering by 1924, French occupation of the Ruhr valley only exacerbated economic and political turmoil.  In addition to this, the American economy crashed in 1929, resulting in further economic hardship for an already crippled state. The combination of the depression and foreign exploitation of German industry foremost established the conditions which led to the rise of Hitler's NSDAP and ultimately the second world war (Riel & Schram, 72-74). Many factors arguably led to the outbreak of WWII, however it is important to note this: Had the German economy not been crippled by the Treaty of Versailles and the Allies not economically exploited German industry, it is possible that the national socialist party may not have seized power and established the series of events which led to the deadliest war in history. 

On the other hand, the economic conditions at the end of the Second World War were dramatically improved thanks to the lessons learned from the previous war. Once again victorious, the Allies secured the economic stability of Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Using the Marshall Plan, the United States infused billions of American dollars into the war ravaged European economy. This action stimulated the European growth to its highest level ever with the European standard of living actually surpassing that of the United States in only 2 decades (Arkes, 19-42). This massive economic surge stabilized Western Europe, allowing it to once again become an industrial powerhouse, and one of the most stable regions in the world.  

In contrast to the rebuilding of western Europe under the Marshall plan, Soviet influenced Eastern Europe had a relatively different experience. Socialist countries of Eastern Europe and satellite states of the Soviet Union were dictated not to accept Marshall Plan money by Stalin. Instead, Eastern Bloc countries were aided to a degree by the Molotov plan, which was not nearly as effective. Regardless, due to the nature of the Soviet system, Eastern European countries simply could not establish the same level of economic security and freedom of the capitalist system. Socialist governments were unable to provide many basic necessities and services (Berger, 17-20). Referring once again to Obama, a people unable to secure their basic needs will inevitably do what is necessary to obtain them. In combination with a number of other factors, this economic hardship only exacerbated the conditions which led to the demise of the Soviet Union, and much of post-WWII socialist Europe. This only goes to prove how important it is to ensure economic security and opportunity in the model as clearly a greater degree of economic opportunity leads to a higher level of stability as exhibited by western nations as opposed to eastern nations. 

Without economic stability, it is impossible to secure a lasting peace. An economy is a vital part of a functioning society and without one, individuals cannot take part in a more complex society. They lack the intrinsic motivation to provide production so they that may gain access basic necessities and exchange. A lack of production reduces the power of the government and does not allow the setting in place of system by which individuals can divide labor and gain access to necessities such as food, water, and medicine. Lack of access to these necessities only breeds further conflict, so it is absolutely vital for the victorious nation to ensure the stability of the economy.   

Referring once again to 19th century nation building, the modern nation state is unified by an alike national history, culture, and system of ideals. These reasons are why we associate modern day France with baguettes and mimes, or modern-day America with baseball and diabetes. It is national identity which makes ethnically derived government so essential to the success of the modern nation state. It is only natural for a people to strive to be self-ruled, rather than be led by a government with no understanding of local culture, values, or priorities. Therefore, in order to secure peace after conflict, it is vital for a victorious nation to maintain the sovereignty of the defeated government.  

After the end of World War II, the Allied powers decided it was within their interests to maintain the independence of former Axis nations. As we know, these countries have remained extremely stable democracies to the present day. Across the Iron Curtain however, the Soviet Union decided it was within their national interests to occupy Eastern Bloc countries and install socialist governments. This move created a buffer region between potential aggressors from Europe and Moscow in addition to promoting socialism. In order to maintain these satellite states, the Soviet Union committed many resources to the oppression of people in Eastern European states. Essentially, most Eastern European governments were merely puppets to the USSR. The government was not ethnically derived. Uprisings such as the Prague Spring of 1968 indicated the level of desire Eastern European peoples and governments to reform their states. Since these ideas were a threat to Soviet communism, the USSR simply sent in tanks to oppress these people and bring them back into line (Tismaneanu, 21-42). Had the government of Czeckslovakia been truly sovereign, it would have been allowed to reform itself without the need for Soviet oppression and further violence.   

Failure to provide an ethnically derived government after war termination can be further supported by recent examples. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Sunni Ba'ath government was totally disbanded, and a coalition government was put into its place. Failing to understand the complexities of Iraqi culture, the coalition decided to make the provisional government almost exclusively Shia since the Ba'ath party was majority Sunni, which led to stereotyping Sunni Muslims as violent and oppressive. This was a grave error. When the Shia came into power, they immediately took measures to oppress Sunni Muslims in retaliation for their historically poor treatment. These measures generated Sunni insurgency which would eventually incorporate itself into AQI and prolong tension and fighting after the official end of the war. One might argue that since Shia Muslims are the nations majority, the government should be majority Shia, thereby satisfying the criteria for ethnic government and making the rise of radical terror and Sunni insurgency completely unrelated. It is important to note however that Sunni Muslims make up over 35% of Iraq's population, making them no small minority (Cockburn). If Iraq had been ruled by a party which attempted to rule across all religions, ethnic strife would not generate tension.  

Countries which were allowed to maintain their ethnically derived government following the end of a conflict rarely ever experienced instability or oppression after the termination hostilities provided the other principles of an enduring peace were accounted for. For example, nearly every country occupied by the Allies after the end of the second world war were allowed to maintain an ethnically derived government and remain political and economic powerhouses today. No stable country exists today which has lost a war and was unable to maintain a government derived of its own people. If a people cannot rule themselves, they will never be content, and true peace can never take hold.  

It is responsibility of the victor in a conflict to ensure the settlement of an enduring peace. This is done by establishing a peace with respect to three fundamental pillars: regional security, economic security, and ethnically derived government. These principles are very much interdependent. Without regional security, economic opportunity can never be established and become widespread. Without an ethnic government, regional security can never be truly attained. Without economic opportunity, a government can never become strong and a people cannot guarantee regional security.   

Throughout history, many policymakers have been ignorant to one or more of these principles, setting conditions where violence never truly ceases and national content is unable to become widespread. While every war is different and conditions mandate different policy objectives to secure peace, true termination of conflict can never be established unless the proposed fundamental peace model and universal post-war principles are themselves attained.   

  

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 