Congo-Kinshasa

This paper (PDF) from Chatham House contains all the usual and well-meaning recommendations for conflict zones:

• Use international aid to the governments as leverage
• A robust multinational force to stem violence
• Long-term involvement in the region by the international community
• Encourage non-violent, legal dispute resolution
• Strengthen the local military
• Address natural resource allocation

These are all platitudes that sound great to the pussies that get involved in the post-conflict, internal conflict, peaceful resolution type issues. These things are pipe dreams. Withdrawing international aid, or even the threat, will exacerbate the conflict. Few nations want to commit their troops to actual combat. And the countries that are interested in peacekeeping are the wussiest of all. The international community possess a finite amount and span of attention to go around. Lawyers don't tell guys with AK-47s what to do. Strengthening local militaries takes too long. Protecting property rights is a fundamental function of governments. The international community isn't going to be able to fix those from on high.

The politically incorrect and distinctly unwarm and unfuzzy, but ultimately only effective policy is, and I've said it before: 1) Pick a side. 2) Destroy the other side. 3) Leave.

Step 1 usually involves picking the lesser of two evils, but that's just how life is. You won't always be fighting for saints. What you are fighting for is normalcy and stability. Step 2 is the most problematic because people equate the absence of conflict with peace. This is not so. The increase in violence will be temporary so that stability can return far quicker than drawn out conflicts. In fact, this entire Congo fiasco traces its roots back to Rwanda and 1994. If we had chosen a side then and wiped out the other, then we wouldn't have this problem now. Step 3 is not leave immediately, but after our chosen winning side can assert enough authority to keep the country stable. A few months maybe.

I realize it's not nice. I realize that this will appear to kill more people than the proposed nice solution. But that is only appearances. What I am aruging is that the long, drawn out peace processes that always start with the best intentions and everybody has high hopes are simply prolonged cease-fires. The reason these conflicts are never resolved is because nobody wins.

In any armed conflict one side must surrender or be destroyed. Period. The often ambigous and complicated nature of internal conflicts make surrender difficult to achieve. So, the answer will frequently be to simply destroy one side in the interests of stability.

But FLG, shouldn't we give diplomacy a chance? By all means. But once the international community, or whomever, decides to use force to resolve the situation don't pussyfoot around. Go in armed to the teeth. Hit as hard and as fast as possible. And completely destroy one side.