Should a Peacekeeping force be sent after Isis defeat?

Post Reply New Topic

This is an idea I am beginning to flirt with. Peacekeeping I think has been successful, in Kurdistan and Bosnia after the Dayton accords operations their were successful. They were able to prevent the escalation of conflict. Maybe they could work in Iraq.

The goal of this action is to keep the peace and prevent militants from arising in the area. We have seen from the battle of Mosul where tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were routed by Isis, that we cannot rely on their army to be equipped to face the struggles of today. But more importantly the Sunni Muslims of the north have to be protected from any reprisal attacks from the Shia population, as we have seen, in the 2003 invasion, when we fail to protect the Sunnis from these incidences they will be driven to rise up in arms.

Wouldn't be a bad idea.

I don't think there are any feasible solutions. The biggest problem with the three state solution for example is that the Shiite region would be a highway for Iran into Syria. To make any headway at all there'd have to be mass conversion from Islam to Christianity and/or atheism.

Peacekeeping forces are a joke, what the middle east needs is basically a return to colonialism and a deIslamification. A crusade like the terrorists have been accusing us of waging, anything less and the fake nation states of the middle east will have us in perpetual conflict. I don't want to do this but I think that would be what is necessary to actually "fix" the situation because otherwise our interventions more times than not just make things 10x worse. Otherwise the best option is to become energy independent and disengage from that part of the globe, we need an untangling of alliances and more willingness to work with supposedly adversarial countries like Russia on our shared interests. You need more than 10k peacekeepers, try like 10 million.