5 ms·

By definition don't ceasefires fail until the conflict is resolved on a long term basis (then in a sense the last ceasefire succeeds). It seems like a variatio

By definition don't ceasefires fail until the conflict is resolved on a long term basis (then in a sense the last ceasefire succeeds). It seems like a variation on the expression - "I always find it in the the last place I looked."

akiselev 10y ago
If you're fighting a war you want a ceasefire to achieve any goals made impossible by constant conflict, which may or may not be peace talks. The success of a ceasefire depends on those goals, not on whether or not it ends that conflict. Even during total wars, life must go on and there comes a time when everyone wants a break from the conflict even if they don't see a possible path to peace. For example, there's the famous WWI Christmas ceasefire [1], the WWII mini-ceasefires to help wounded soldiers [2], and plenty of more modern ceasefires that allow the labor pool to temporarily switch from war to agriculture for critical harvests [3]. Edit: Also, just because the peace talks don't succeed doesn't mean that the ceasefire is a failure. Peace is a lot harder to negotiate than a break in the fighting so naturally only a small fraction of ceasefires will result in peace. They fail when not only the peace talks break down, but when one or more sides uses the ceasefire for tactical gain, increasing distrust and making continuation of the peace process that much harder. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce [2] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-hurtgen-forest-temporary-cease-fires-allowed-assistance-for-the-wounded-soldiers.htm http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-hurtgen-forest-temporary... [3] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/asia/harvesting-cease-fire-offers-respite-in-afghanistan.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/asia/harvesting-c...
- digikata 10y ago
  Yes, I didn't intend my comment to mean there should be no ceasefires (or that there always should be ceasefires as a tool for peace for that matter). I think the article has the seed of some interesting data for analysis, but isn't at a strong conclusion yet. What might really be interesting to get to is if one can see in data if certain pre-conditions to ceasefires are associated with an increased likelihood to get to longer term peace - or just that they're not as employed as time to regroup-for-the-next-attack - though it's hard to see in data if those waves would have occurred anyway (there are flareups and lulls in conflict even without cease fires). On the flip side, in a very grim way, could more attacks, more intensely bring the conflict to an end more quickly?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
Some ceasefires are of an explicitly limited duration. If the fighting resumes after the end of the ceasefire, that might count as a non-failure. Hard to tell how they're counting it here.
Paul-ish 10y ago
"A war is not won if the defeated enemy has not been turned into a friend."
- ptaipale 10y ago
  That's true of course, but many think of winning wars in the terms of the well-known quote about what is best in life: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!" Romantic, but not really going to work.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Historically, it works quite well. Even in modern times it's not that uncommon to see wars that end only with the destruction of the entire ruling class in the defeated nation.

akiselev 10y ago

If you're fighting a war you want a ceasefire to achieve any goals made impossible by constant conflict, which may or may not be peace talks. The success of a ceasefire depends on those goals, not on whether or not it ends that conflict. Even during total wars, life must go on and there comes a time when everyone wants a break from the conflict even if they don't see a possible path to peace. For example, there's the famous WWI Christmas ceasefire [1], the WWII mini-ceasefires to help wounded soldiers [2], and plenty of more modern ceasefires that allow the labor pool to temporarily switch from war to agriculture for critical harvests [3]. Edit: Also, just because the peace talks don't succeed doesn't mean that the ceasefire is a failure. Peace is a lot harder to negotiate than a break in the fighting so naturally only a small fraction of ceasefires will result in peace. They fail when not only the peace talks break down, but when one or more sides uses the ceasefire for tactical gain, increasing distrust and making continuation of the peace process that much harder. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce [2] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-hurtgen-forest-temporary-cease-fires-allowed-assistance-for-the-wounded-soldiers.htm http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-hurtgen-forest-temporary... [3] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/asia/harvesting-cease-fire-offers-respite-in-afghanistan.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/asia/harvesting-c...

digikata 10y ago
Yes, I didn't intend my comment to mean there should be no ceasefires (or that there always should be ceasefires as a tool for peace for that matter). I think the article has the seed of some interesting data for analysis, but isn't at a strong conclusion yet. What might really be interesting to get to is if one can see in data if certain pre-conditions to ceasefires are associated with an increased likelihood to get to longer term peace - or just that they're not as employed as time to regroup-for-the-next-attack - though it's hard to see in data if those waves would have occurred anyway (there are flareups and lulls in conflict even without cease fires). On the flip side, in a very grim way, could more attacks, more intensely bring the conflict to an end more quickly?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

mikeash 10y ago

Some ceasefires are of an explicitly limited duration. If the fighting resumes after the end of the ceasefire, that might count as a non-failure. Hard to tell how they're counting it here.

Paul-ish 10y ago

"A war is not won if the defeated enemy has not been turned into a friend."

ptaipale 10y ago
That's true of course, but many think of winning wars in the terms of the well-known quote about what is best in life: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!" Romantic, but not really going to work.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Historically, it works quite well. Even in modern times it's not that uncommon to see wars that end only with the destruction of the entire ruling class in the defeated nation.