Shortly after Al-Qaeda’s September 11th attack on the United States, the US Congress approved the use of military force against groups or individuals who planned or carried out such attacks, as well as those who attacked them, had organized. This eventually led to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden lived under the protection of the Taliban, for the past 18 years, the mission and purpose of the US involvement. In Afghanistan, they became three US administrations, more military commandos, and more Afghan governments. About 3,500 US and NATO soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghans were killed. In 2019, the United States spent about $ 900 billion on direct expenditures for war and reconstruction.
What has the international community achieved with these losses of lives and their enormous financial costs? Al Qaeda’s essential ability in the district was delineated, which was the first goal of our military reaction, and the United States altogether diminished the cross-fringe capacities of terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today, be that as it may, the Taliban have recuperated, and Pakistan remains the host and defender of some fear-based oppressor and renegade gatherings. Head of staff gen. Joseph Dunford, previous authority of the US and NATO missions in Afghanistan, as of late, portrayed the “stalemate.”
The assortment of dangers confronting the United States has changed since 2001. Afghanistan is never again the most earnest or most significant national security challenge for the United States. The United States is presented to an assortment of dangers, including the development of China, forceful Russia, and environmental change, which require a noteworthy interest in US assets and consideration in the coming years. The present sending of 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan is the most significant arrangement of US troops in a worldwide clash (Szayna et al., 2017). The $ 45 billion yearly interest in Afghanistan and the extensive time and consideration of American pioneers are anticipated to address a difficulty that is never again one of the national security dangers considered in the United States (Zartman, 2019). Under President Donald Trump, the Pentagon’s national safeguard system portrays the fundamental test of US thriving and security as “remembering long haul vital challenge” with Russia and China, terrorism as a “tenacious state” and, without a doubt, no existential danger to the United States.
The report examines and recommends how the United States has reached this stage and what is the current state of US and international efforts in Afghanistan. It will examine long-term policy assumptions and assess the risks of Afghanistan’s military exit from the cost of strategic resilience. After nearly 18 years of war, the United States must place its strategy in Afghanistan in the context of the broader national security agenda in the United States. The United States must now recognize that its military involvement in Afghanistan will not be a decisive factor for Afghanistan’s future and that it must change its strategy to advance US interests and peace in Afghanistan.
The current situation in Afghanistan calls into question mere characterizations. Below is a state of the current country that takes into consideration Afghans’ quality of life, security situation, and US participation:
US efforts in Afghanistan have favored some US and Afghan interests, but structural challenges are preventing the United States from fully achieving its goals. The United States cannot prescribe results in Afghanistan.
The United States could call for an end to the war and the US military presence in Afghanistan through a negotiated settlement. In early 2011, after two years of preparatory work, the United States presented a seemingly clear policy of conducting peace negotiations. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would trigger a diplomatic wave to bring this conflict to political conclusions. Ten years ago, it became clear that there was no military victory for the United States and its Afghan allies. Letters from the United States of America began to seek political agreement at the heart of their Afghanistan policy only in 2019, following an intensification of military efforts in 2017-2018 that did not result in positive change during the conflict. This is the only option that can potentially reduce violence in Afghanistan and allow the US military withdrawal under permitted conditions. Promising to reduce violence is also an option to better preserve the results of Afghanistan’s social and economic development over the past 18 years, if successful; however, success is not guaranteed. The Taliban, Kabul, and other Afghan leaders have promised to find a political solution to their conflict. The influence of outside supporters – all Afghan parties with relations with foreign governments may be sufficient to vote, even if all sponsors need agreement. If this option offers the best chance of success, the United States should do so. There is some uncertainty about when you will be withdrawn from the military, although social factors are likely to speak out against the open US presence. They can start withdrawing at least some forces after they have a deal with the Taliban. However, the US commitment to Afghanistan, with its military presence and financial support, is the primary source of US influence in promoting the negotiations.
A degree of Military presence in the United States
Although this presence was reduced for a reasonable period, intra-Afghan negotiations would have a better chance of success. If the United States concludes that these negotiations will not be successful shortly, it may rethink the viability of its continuing military presence. The public reacted inconsistently with the policy because, seventeen years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, a new investigation showed that Americans doubted the value of the ongoing war and that the US wanted to remove troops from the country. Thousands of dollars are still spent each year in that country. Most disturbingly, about 2,400 soldiers were victims of the last war, and ten times more than many of them returned home with war injuries. Most respondents believe it is time to retire, if not wholly (Stokes & Waterman, 2018).
As indicated by the review, 53% of Americans and about 60% of veterans don’t accept the United States has a clear vital objective in Afghanistan. Just 15% of respondents and 23% of veterans said the administration was seeking after these objectives. 51% of respondents said the time had come to bring down the mark of Afghan soldiers or wipe out all soldiers in the nation the following year. The equivalent goes for Americans similarly when asked what number of soldiers will be in the following five years. 57% of Americans, including 69% of veterans, said they upheld the president’s choice to pull back all soldiers from Afghanistan.
Americans do not consider them to be a triumph for the United States. Two out of each three Americans, 73 percent of whom are veterans, can’t state the war was effective. Specifically, 36% of Americans, including 40% of veterans, said the war was fruitless, while 30% (33% of veterans) said they did not have any of the achievements. While most Americans think the time has come to leave Afghanistan, they have blended sentiments that are going to the gathering were the correct choice. At this stage, the perspectives on military veterans vary from those of the general non-military personnel populace. The more significant part of those reviewed in the military or armed force administration accepts that sending troops in 2001 was the correct arrangement (Stokes, & Waterman, 2018). In any case, 70 percent of Americans, for the most part, do not express sending soldiers to Afghanistan in 2001 was a smart thought. After nearly two decades of fighting in Afghanistan, Americans, including veterans, have correctly understood that the war is not over and that they are strategically entering their country. The president should pay more attention to the realistic view of the American people than to clarify “experts” who say they should go the right way.
The latest survey found that a large number of Americans, 43 percent said they believed in the US military, they must be less involved in conflicts around the world. Only 12% of respondents said the army should be more involved more often, while veterans said the United States should moderate itself. Almost half, or 49 percent, believe the United States should send fewer military forces around the world. One third said the level of commitment should be maintained at the current level, and only 17% said the United States should participate more. Americans are also concerned about the extension of the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan. More than 60%, including 69% of veterans, do not want this expansion, and 46% believe the United States should reduce its financial support to Pakistan. More than two out of three veterans said the United States should withdraw its aid to Pakistan. Americans’ negative feelings about the war in Afghanistan appeared without understanding the duration of the conflict compared to other wars. Only 44% of the US population can say that the war in Afghanistan is the longest in US history. Veterans more accurately estimated the duration of US conflicts abroad.
The media approach centers principally on the number of soldiers, strategies, and expenses proposed to manage the Taliban and its radical supporters, just as the places of different US government officials, including the president. Be that as it may, a practical methodology is significantly more confused than straightforward security issues, regardless of how significant. At any rate, seven columns are required for a worldwide technique in Afghanistan: (1) military strategies, security and capacities; (2) Afghanistan’s household strategy; (3) administration and financial outcomes; (4) the job of Pakistan; (5) alternatives for a non-military arrangement; (6) global help, and (7) a successful US approach and a spending procedure. Concentrating just on the military column is an equation for misconception. Leaving one of the columns can prompt organization indebtedness.
Backers for the US job in Afghanistan keep on arguing that it is in the national enthusiasm to keep Afghanistan from turning into a fear monger base once more. They state achievement can be achieved without a time limit, thanks to sustained, energetic, and multi-annual efforts to strengthen the Afghan government’s capacity and pressure the Taliban and others to pave the way for a solution, not military. According to them, this approach will prevent terrorists from operating internationally in Afghanistan.
Developing Political Debate in the United States
In the United States, it is essential to understand that success requires a multifaceted and integrated strategy that deals with security issues at the same time and provides practical diplomatic and non-military assistance.
Provide Military Support and Increase Afghan Capacity
Over the past two years, the Taliban have gained ground militarily. The battle uncovered genuine inadequacies in the Afghan military, security, and knowledge administrations. In spite of this, numerous Afghan fighters and administrators battled effectively and endured colossal misfortunes in contradicting the Taliban. The Afghan armed force unmistakably required more help from US flight, insight, and remarkable powers to counter the Taliban assaults, they as of late involved in the region. They will need this help and guidance for some time. In the meantime, it is unmistakably essential to wipe out degenerate and ineffectual authorities to increase compelling nearness from US chambers closer to the fronts and a genuine modernization of preparing programs, including meeting the aviation based armed forces needs of Afghan powers (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). The arrival of Afghan military pioneers has started with the help of Afghan President Ghani; however, it will require some serious energy and constancy, and assemble limit when sufficient assets are accessible. This gathering of inquiries was at the core of US military interest. More troops prior this year, and this is urgent in the Trump organization banter, which would incorporate thought of the utilization of private military organizations.
Assuring Afghan Domestic Political Support
However, in addition to essential security decisions, the necessary undertaking is to keep up a fruitful association with Kabul and other critical Afghan entertainers, remembering supporting the elements of local Afghan strategy for the help of the US goals joined together. In the nation, the diplomat, leader of the military of the United States, and its parliamentarians must keep up and reinforce relationships to accomplish better administration and advance administrative procedures as a compelling and real option in contrast to the Taliban. The present organization of President Ghani and Executive President Abdullah has burned through the more significant part of the initial two years in a place of division to make arrangements and make essential changes. US authorities and worldwide partners endeavored to discover approaches to push ahead and defeat obstructions. Government execution improved a year ago, with more spending execution changes and clear enemy of debasement endeavors, however substantially more should be finished. The fundamental strategic assignments for the United States are: supporting and advancing: 1) continuous changes and better open administrations; 2) that the Afghans acknowledged the 2018 parliamentary decisions; and 3) help discover manners by which inescapable political divisions, for example, parliamentary and accordingly presidential races, won’t genuinely undermine general society war exertion or the authenticity of the populace. During the outing, further political change might be required. It won’t be a simple undertaking to take care of these issues; however, it is essential.
Supporting Government Reforms and Economic Growth
Although not a political structure, the United States and different donors should keep on working with Afghan specialists to improve government execution and elevate an arrival to monetary development. This work ranges from charge assortment to building streets and schools, giving wellbeing and different administrations, to advancing occupation creation in the private division. To keep up and build open help, the legislature must be viewed as a supporter of the arrangement of security and different administrations (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). The US and others think of it as fundamental to keep up the working of government and to improve the conveyance of administrations. The battle against debasement in security and equity frameworks is crucial. This is an essential errand to acquire better outcomes for the help given, yet similarly significant research and concentrates over and over help us to remember the significance of setting up government authenticity in the battle against destruction in the Taliban. The drive for better administration and less debasement requires stable and skillful tact to beat opposition from individuals influenced by the violation, just as more outcome situated specialized help programs. The key will be the political will of the pioneers.
The other segment of the Civil Assistance column is advancing transient monetary development and proceeding to work for long haul financial advancement, including Afghanistan’s common assets. Given the considerable number of youngsters in Afghanistan, mass joblessness, and low monetary development, occupations should be made. It implies working intimately with government, different contributors, and the private segment to invigorate country and urban economies. Simultaneously, projects and strategies should bolster long haul endeavors to build up the horticultural and modern divisions to a restricted degree. In this specific situation, measures should be taken to end the illicit plundering of minerals and different assets, just as medication creation, which has been terminated as of late and produced generous salary for the Taliban. The opiate challenge is a genuine migraine, yet we should fathom it. Simultaneously, government, givers, and potential financial specialists must advance improvement that, as indicated by numerous examinations, contains inexhaustible mineral and common assets. This won’t be a quick answer for Afghanistan’s spending needs. Ventures keep going for a considerable length of time; however, they bring advantages and financial expectations. For both monetary help and administration, a complete audit of existing projects ought to be embraced. This survey ought to think about how to expand the nearness of regular citizens in the United States outside the consulate dividers in Kabul, including US army installations everywhere throughout the nation. The ongoing report of the Inspector General of Afghanistan has explained this issue (Barry, 2018).
A more constructive Afghanistan
Pakistan has been a factor of disappointment and a requirement for achievement in Afghanistan. Washington is sure of supporting Islamabad in its endeavors in Afghanistan; however, the Taliban and other radical gatherings are utilizing portions of Pakistan as asylums. Many accept this has occurred with the dynamic help of individual pieces of the Pakistani government and has cost the United States a great deal of exertion in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the truth wherein Pakistan underpins the Taliban and others, the Taliban and similar gatherings must keep on working in Pakistan to be progressively effective on the ground. This is one of the principal difficulties of the present US approach survey. Will Pakistan’s participation be improved by joining switches and motivating forces? If not, should the United States act singularly to expand pressure on Pakistan-based Taliban and Haqqani arranges after various fear based oppressor assaults in Afghanistan? By what means would it be a good idea for us to strategy impacts the Pakistani atomic express, its mind-boggling national scene, and its competition with India? Whatever the finishes of this audit, the administration of relations with Pakistan and its job in Afghanistan will be vital. Serious support of senior US authorities will be required.
A Pathway for Afghan Reconciliation
Few onlookers accept the circumstance is ready for a Taliban unification process and that Kabul can locate a cheerful arrangement. In any case, many admit that the United States ought to have authorities and instruments set up to help this administrative procedure and address the points of view of Afghans, worldwide accomplices, and others. It won’t be brisk or straightforward, as bombed endeavors demonstrated when the United States and its accomplices had 130,000 soldiers in Afghanistan (Barry, 2018). Numerous specialists in Afghanistan state the quest for compromise must be a piece of an effective technique.
Given the present troubles, the United States could embrace different elective techniques in Afghanistan, some of which are altogether superior to other people, if Washington needs to accomplish its base objective of securing the Afghan state by compromising fear based oppression, insecurity and struggle decline in the United States. Locale The choices, which are rehashed underneath, because of what is regular in broad daylight discusses, are assessed and outlined as far as viability and supportability to accomplish this objective.
A local answer to end the power battle
On the off chance that the contention in Afghanistan is viewed as an outcome of Indo-Pakistani competition, which cannot be settled without the earlier arranging of a methodology between New Delhi and Islamabad (also Rawalpindi), the United States must put resources into Asia south for all time. La Paz (as Richard Holbrooke had initially arranged, previous US Special Representative in Afghanistan and Pakistan). In any case, this arrangement isn’t right: it doesn’t consider the Afghan regional issue with Pakistan, whose roots are in the struggle with India, and regardless it is hard to unravel for the time being, which improves the circumstance of the contention in Afghanistan. Another variation of this alternative is the idea of territorial lack of bias, wherein Afghanistan dynamically disavows its present security joint efforts for the usage of a helpful security understanding marked by the entirety of its neighbors. In any case, this arrangement is more uncertain than it appears because, without Washington’s assistance, Kabul would experience issues implementing this understanding if at least one neighbor had damaged it in Afghanistan.
A procedure for arriving at a political settlement in Afghanistan would require a coordinated US exertion to ensure the Afghan state and its accomplishments since September 11, 2001, and to look for a dynamic compromise with the Afghan Taliban. The rules are coordinating the Afghan political framework and, subsequently, the finish of the current conventional war. It is possible, yet not yet demonstrated, that such a methodology can ensure and secure US interests against transnational fear monger gatherings, Taliban relations run from the break (al-Qaeda) to the resistance (Islamic State), and other local psychological oppressor gatherings productive. To accomplish this objective, the United States must hold assets to direct counterterrorism activities in Afghanistan, just as to agree with substantial operational difficulties.
Surveying the Strategies
No exhaustive investigation is expected to infer that neither provincial nor single methodologies would meet US vital premiums right now. No territorial or one-sided methods alone would be adequate to secure and reinforce the Afghan state toward the finish of the contention or as a component of a productive counterinsurgency endeavor. Provincial techniques are troublesome, lengthy, aberrant, and eccentric, even though Washington has contributed a great deal. Islamabad, for instance, has a robust motivating force to secure the Taliban, fortifying Kabul while opposing US pressure on Washington’s reliance on Islamabad for availability with Afghanistan (Li et al., 2016). The central arrangement that could resolve this Gordian bunch is an American give up in Pakistan that enables its specialists to free Afghanistan to the detriment of Kabul, or a showdown with Pakistan by whatever methods available, including military power. The previous would most likely have set off a genuine territorial emergency that would influence numerous Afghan neighbors, while the last would have prompted outfitted conflicts between the United States and Pakistan. Because of the assortment of dangers related to every arrangement, it is probably not going to be the favored practice in Washington.
Uneven methodologies are so tricky for different reasons. Today in the United States, there is little any desire for a significant acceleration in Afghanistan on the off chance that it gives the idea that a substantial part of the nation’s cross-outskirt danger has been decreased or dislodged by nearby hazards. The Taliban is, without a doubt, seen as an undesirable power. Yet, the will and the way to overcome them militarily through a long battle of extraordinary counterinsurgency appear to go past the current political atmosphere in the United States. Be that as it may, the total withdrawal from Afghanistan is as risky as it leaves the nation with the capacity to oversee dangers, as meager as it sounds today.
In any case, there is a compelling gathering of senior legislators in the Trump organization who, regardless of the president’s well-advanced worries about radical Islam, will, in general, retreat because the expense of the contention in Afghanistan is considered restrictive as fear-based oppressor bunches working in the nation are in peril. Landed in the United States were underestimated. President Trump most likely has these thoughts when his remarks on Afghanistan in 2012 are a complete catastrophe. The Taliban’s arrival to the field will probably open new prospects for the restoration of the United States, which will overcome its foes. States, yet the issue is decreased to the significant expense of battling against a political enemy that may not be imported legitimately into the United States and characterizing a progressively compelling and financially savvy system for ensuring the earth country. As this cannot be guaranteed, and as a result of the energy of past political choices, those of the administration that promoters consistent cooperation may happen that day, yet the more extensive pattern is clear: the United States is by all accounts every it possess nation. Most undesirable blows, around 23 consistently. Sparing billions of dollars, more than $ 5 billion to help Kabul, and the rest to support US military activities to help open clash, will increment after some time.
The least complex and most constrained methodology is to settle on long haul nearness in Afghanistan concentrated on the battle against psychological warfare. The upsides of this situation in the United States are self-evident. Washington would have a perpetual proximity in Afghanistan that could be utilized to persistently assault (and future) aggressor bunches that could compromise US interests while advancing different US local objectives. What’s more, that would give the Afghan express the mental advantages of continued US duty. What could shield the Taliban from deduction they can hang tight for the United States? What’s more, the worldwide nearness advocating the dismissal of current Afghan compromise offers. Also, this position would be a lot less expensive and worthy to the individuals who are shocked by the low weight of the Afghan war in Washington.
To begin with, the constrained methodology would infer an extraordinary decrease in financial and political help to the United States, which would additionally debilitate the Afghan government’s capacity to manage the uprisings and make it harder to accomplish the objective of taking action against the Taliban. The possibility of a close perpetual US nearness in the nation could additionally exasperate the contention on a few levels as opposed to looking for an answer. These outcomes would make the US system established in an unadulterated enemy of fear-based oppression ugly to any Afghan government, which would be a significant burden for Kabul in spite of the advantages it would bring to Washington. The way that a littler counterterrorism impression isn’t sufficient to restrict the genuine advancement of the Taliban because the Americans were participating in this strategic liable to concentrate on securing troops as opposed to on the concurred fear based oppressor assault fortify the Afghan with this methodology (Li et al., 2016). While an enemy of psychological oppressor methodology is less expensive than some other constrained alternative, it would not occur well before the American political framework triumphed we would be worn out on such a troublesome trade-off on the off chance that it didn’t adequately and successfully ensure the Afghan state against militant psychological dangers in the district. Subsequently, the underlying intrigue to the counterterrorism procedure is being diminished, given the double requests on believability and maintainability.
On the off chance that the above contentions are convincing, the constrained methodologies that stay to the United States in Afghanistan are either an altered rendition of business as usual or an increasingly purposeful exertion to agree. The two procedures have significant similitude. The state of affairs, in addition to approach, could be a standard methodology for the Trump organization if the president mirrored his constituent guarantee to keep US powers in Afghanistan, regardless of whether disdain requires a humble shotgun. The essential strategic all US powers would keep on being the preparation of their Afghan partners; however, the formation of extra specialists would enable US officers to give explicit help to battle, restorative departure, and reconnaissance if contingents. Afghans request environmental control of guerrillas.
As a rule, this procedure would include keeping up the dedication of the United States. With the progress plans concurred at the NATO Warsaw Summit in 2016, the United States will furnish Kabul with monetary and military help to Kabul, which intends to diminish support financing and troop levels. The critical component of the norm in addition to approach is that while the present US technique in Afghanistan doesn’t conquer the revolt and fabricates a reliable Afghan express, a fitting fortifying of the activity plan will fill existing holes and take advantage of new lucky breaks. The dangers related to this methodology are that the United States could put more assets in a system it has not yet proposed and would never prove to be fruitful.
Since the beginning of the US military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has attempted to prevent Afghanistan’s unmanaged and subordinate areas and the border region between the Afghanistan and Pakistan international terrorism platform. However, the US policy approach in Afghanistan has evolved since al Qaeda was initially prevented from planning and implementing a short-term mass attack against its home country. The Afghan Taliban is currently impeding the Afghan government’s ability and legitimacy to weaken. The Afghan Taliban has been the strongest since 2001 and has demonstrated its capabilities and resilience by claiming the protection of nationalism in Pakistan, enjoying a haven in Pakistan, and leaving the Afghan government and power centers behind the suppression of theft crimes and delivery of other public goods.
The continued presence of US coalition troops and forces in Afghanistan should focus on stabilizing the security environment as well as on essential and complementary efforts to combat corruption and discrimination ethnic and tribal trafficking; and drug trafficking. However, given the capacity of the current governor of Afghanistan, the realistic search for US aid is obvious, and its partners must be that Afghanistan, like the Central and South Asian countries that are in a similar situation, achieves standards of government and economic outcomes. The United States must intensify its pressure on Pakistan to modify its calculations in favor of the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network. The United States should go beyond the ISAF coalition to strengthen coordination with other interested countries, such as the Gulf States, China, and India, which could have more weight to support the Afghan government.
Successive US administrations have been striving to lay the groundwork for the development of US policy objectives in Afghanistan and to maintain a US military presence. The government should try to differentiate its strategy from those of the previous two governments and remind the American public that further collaboration with the Afghan government serves US security interests by providing a center for intelligence gathering and operations Special criticisms of terrorism.
The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan under the conditions set by the three presidents who fought it, at least at a reasonable cost. It is unrealistic to say that the Taliban risk defeat and that a constitutional, democratic, and competent Kabul-based government can survive. A Taliban victory could come after the withdrawal of the US military, but it is not a severe problem for US security. In particular, the threat of a secure haven for terrorists is minimal, based mainly on the myth that territorial ports are beneficial for conducting cross-border terrorist attacks. Also, fears of disintegration and regional destabilization, as well as fears of loss of credibility, are unfounded: there is a good reason to expect stability after the negotiated withdrawal, and it appears that war will further damage the image of the United States of America will probably defeat her. More specific elements of the mission, including the suppression of the opium trade and the establishment of a sustainable human rights regime, proved futile after nearly two decades of effort and were not the target of the United States Army an instrument to protect the country from threats abroad, is very suitable for dealing with it. An agreement negotiated with a formal ceasefire and the withdrawal of the US military at the center is the most rational and promising way to overcome inertia and avoid the most undesirable results.
Barry, B. (2018). Harsh Lessons: Iraq, Afghanistan and the Changing Character of War. Routledge.
Li, M., Leidner, B., Euh, H., & Choi, H. S. (2016). The contagion of interstate violence: Reminders of historical interstate (but not intrastate) violence increase support for future violence against unrelated third-party states. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 42(8), 1003-1024.
Stokes, D., & Waterman, K. (2018). Beyond balancing? Intrastate conflict and US grand strategy. Journal of Strategic Studies, 41(6), 824-849.
Szayna, T. S., Watts, S., O’Mahony, A., Frederick, B., & Kavanagh, J. (2017). What Are the Trends in Armed Conflicts, and What Do They Mean for US Defense Policy?. RAND Corporation.
Williamson, M. (2016). Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Routledge.
Wiberg, H., &Scherrer, C. P. (Eds.). (2018). Ethnicity and intra-state conflict: Types, causes and peace strategies. Routledge.
Zartman, I. W. (2019). Need, creed and greed in intrastate conflict. In I William Zartman: A Pioneer in Conflict Management and Area Studies (pp. 95-117). Springer, Cham.
Viotti, P. R., &Kauppi, M. V. (2019). International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.