Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
to my way of thinking neither will ever be resolved until the governemnts of those countries create mechanisms to extend good governance to the entire populace equitably, and with a surity of redress when it inevitably drifts, so that that those same populaces can apply course corrections short of once again taking up arms.
So let us say the Klu Klux Klan or Neo-Nazis start an insurgency in the Southern US with the stated aim of re-introducing segregation. Should those stated aims be considered?

Let us say you have an ethnically mixed community, where the stronger element seek to ethnically cleanse the minority by violent means. Should their grievances be considered?

Bob! Why assume that the root cause of insurgency is always the fault of the government? There are many many grievances against governments that do not call for the legitimate use of violence.

Again, my simple proposition is that the use of military means should make seeking violent resolution the most costly and least attractive option to those seeking change. You never get total peace. That's not the aim. You merely want a state where their violence does not present a threat to your authority of policy.