Military Role in Reconciliation

Abstract

THE MILITARY ROLE IN RECONCILIATION by MAJ Terrence H Buckeye, U.S. Army, 73 pages. Reconciliation remains an elusive concept in both domestic and international contexts as well as academic and governmental contexts. The military role in reconciliation remains even more elusive. As such, this monograph seeks to clarify what the appropriate role is for the US military in a reconciliation process. Moreover, it seeks to discount the role of the military as an enforcer of a reconciliation process. To do so, it first defines reconciliation and establishes a framework for understanding the process. Next, it assesses the adequacy of reconciliation's treatment in current US government doctrine. Finally, it evaluates three case studies of different reconciliation methods to illustrate the application of reconciliation and demonstrate the appropriateness of military force in these methods. The primary finding of this monograph is that military force plays a very small role in a reconciliation process beyond providing a secure environment. Neither military forces, nor any external actors for that matter, can force a divided society to reconcile. External actors who wish to facilitate a reconciliation process must predicate intervention on a clear understanding of the opposing sides' intentions regarding reconciliation. The secondary finding is that the US government's understanding of reconciliation is unclear and its treatment of reconciliation is inconsistent. Current US government doctrine on stability operations only addresses "postconflict states" and does not make the critical distinction between "post-interstate" conflict and "post-intrastate" conflict. Without this distinction, reconciliation will remain a neglected aspect of future stability operations. Moreover, continued misunderstanding of reconciliation will encourage some to advocate that reconciliation be a military responsibility, which could potentially undermine the success of future stability operations.

Comparative Analysis of Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Context of Iraq – United States Bilateral Relations

“…Rwanda used the gacaca, which means grass(roots) (Buckeye, 2010: 46) or people's trial, to supplement modern judicial practices following the April 1994 genocide (Gloppen, 2005: 25;Sarkin, 2008: 24;Sharp, 2013: 166). However, the international community expressed outrage at their use claiming that it was insufficient for providing justice in light of the atrocities committed (Gloppen, 2005: 25; Sarkin, 2008: 24;Sharp, 2013: 166-167).…”