A Comprehensive Systems Analysis: A Dispute between Two Warring Nations ISIS and Syria – Case Study Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "A Comprehensive Systems Analysis: A Dispute between Two Warring Nations ISIS and Syria" is a good example of a case study on politics. System of Systems (SoS) Under Consideration Intractable conflicts are normally distressing. Aside from weakening the international regions, communities, or families where they happen, they are inclined to propagate hate and misery. Even though the common processes and factors related to intractable conflicts have been researched extensively, they epitomize an embarrassing resource for theory construction. It is challenging to fathom such examples of complex systems; therefore, they need more illumination.

Basically, terrorism as well as disputes between warring nations are considered complex systems, which are interconnected and do not have clarity regarding uncertainty, conflict, and purposes about the societal and environmental constraints. According to Ireland (2013, p. 250), while managing the wicked problems, problem structuring is more significant as compared to problem-solving utilizing conventional methods. Therefore, creating mental models is crucial when past events’ interpretation and objectives are entirely in conflict with participants of diverse societies. A conflict as pointed out by Gallo (2012, p. 156) is a unique form of system with a complexity deriving from various unrelated elements.

On one hand, conflict arises between parties, especially when there is a complicated relationship between the parties. In such a case, normally there are diverse and multiple objectives, which sometimes are hidden and could, evolve over time. This normally happens when a conflict arises between various groups in a country. On the other hand, conflicts arise in a context, international, regional, or local, the context could be changing progressively; thus, bring about unanticipated effects on the parties and structure of the conflict. Gallo (2012, p. 157) points out that conflict can only be ended in a stable and real way by constructing a lasting peace, which in most cases is difficult and daunting to achieve.

Therefore, as suggested by Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p. 3) the systems thinking nature makes it a sustainable tool for analyzing intractable, recurrent, or difficult conflicts with no obvious solution, which encompasses complex issues and requires different actors in order to coordinate and envisage the ‘ big picture’ . Scores of frameworks used to analyze conflict are ‘ static’ , offering just a snapshot, normally fragmentary, of the problem devoid of presenting cross-factor interactions or feedback.

Everything, as mentioned by Ricigliano and Chigas (2011), is connected to everything, and this interconnectedness creates challenges to the analytic work; however, acknowledging it is important to good reconstruction and stabilization planning as well as meaningful communication. System thinking can be a useful tool for addressing the dispute between warring nations since it acknowledges the utility and need of analyzing the system’ s components and allows analysts to avoid or address the traditional conflict analysis frameworks’ shortcomings as well as the consequences of exclusively utilizing them.

The consequences include partial, narrowly focused, and biased analysis whose objective is to justify the favorite methodology or approach. As suggested by Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p. 4), systems thinking helps analysts shift their focus from fragmented programming and analysis to an understanding that is more comprehensive about the conflict situation; specifically, it helps identify key dynamics and drivers without oversimplifying. System thinking also creates a portable analysis such that an analysis can be fed easily into the strategy, development, and evaluation, and monitoring of a program.

References

Arnold, R.D. & Wade, J.P., 2015. A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 44, pp.669 – 678.

Gallo, G., 2012. Conflict Theory, Complexity, and Systems Approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 30, no. 2, pp.156–175.

Galtung, J., 1958. Theories of Conflict: Definitions, Dimensions, Negations, Formations. New York: Columbia University.

Ireland, V., 2013. Exploration of Complex System Types. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 20, pp.248 – 255.

Jenkins, B.M., 2015. How Current Conflicts Are Shaping the Future of Syria and Iraq. Perspective. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation.

Li, Y., Zhu, Z. & Gerard, C.M., 2012. Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 29, pp.209–20.

Mehrdad, V., 2009. A Critical Review of Strategic Conflict Theory and Socio-political Instability Models. Revue d'économie politique, vol. 119, pp.817-58.

Page, R., 2015. ISIS and the sectarian conflict in the Middle East. RESEARCH PAPER. London: UK Parliament.

Ricigliano, R. & Chigas, D., 2011. Systems Thinking In Conflict Assessment Concepts And Application. Research Paper. Washington, DC: AMEX International United States Agency for International Development.

Schulenburg, M.v.d., 2014. Keeping or Building Peace? The Challenges of Solving Armed Intra-state Conflicts. Research Paper. New York: New York University.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us