War Termination, Identity Conflict, and Genocide: A Road Map

History illustrates that genocide is a reoccurring phenomenon. A variety of indicators suggest that the potential for the US to deploy military forces to prevent or stop genocide or mass atrocity is increasing. Continued involvement in limited warfare, recent events in Libya and Syria, the identification of preventing and stopping mass atrocities as a national interest, the creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board, and the introduction of mass atrocity response operations joint doctrine are but a few. Stopping genocide involves understanding the motives of all the actors involved, invoking R2P, addressing issues of state sovereignty, understanding the legality of actions taken in accordance with UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and much more. Conducting military operations in an environment such as this is challenging. Employing military means to combat genocidal activity only compounds the complexity of the issue. This study identified ambiguous war termination criteria, identity conflict, and the opaque nature of genocide as the critical factors that contribute to the complexity of employing military forces to end wars initiated to stop genocide. The convergence of these three critical factors creates an operating environment that is difficult to understand and navigate. Therefore, it is important for military planners and commanders to understand the complexities of employing military forces to intervene in or stop genocide. A great deal of academic study has focused on why nations decide to go to war. However, there is a dearth of literature focusing on why nations stop fighting. Although the study of war termination has increased attention in the last few years, war termination as a focus of academically rigorous research is surprisingly lacking.