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

INTRODUCTION 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 epitomise an embarrassing resource for theory construction. It is challenging to fathom such examples of complex systems; therefore, 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 environment constraints. According to Ireland (2013, p.250), while managing the wicked problems, problem structuring is more significant as compared to problem solving utilising 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 a 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 analysing intractable, recurrent or difficult conflicts with no obvious solution, which encompass complex issues and requires different actors in order to coordinate and envisage the ‘big picture’. Scores of frameworks used to analyse 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 stabilisation 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 analysing the system’s components and allows analysts avoid or address the traditional conflict analysis frameworks’ shortcomings as well as the consequences of exclusively utilising them. The consequences include partial, narrowly focused and biased analysis whose objective is to justify favourite 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. Problem Addressed by SoS In the mid-2014, city of Mosul (northern Iraqi) fall into the hands of ISIS, an extremist group commonly referred as the Islamic State. This consequently shocked Western and regional governments given that on paper, the Iraqi Army was considered much powerful as compared to ISIS. The fall of Mosul stimulated a deep disquiet concerning the weakness of the Iraqi state as well as the neighbouring countries. Although the collapse of Iraq’s military as well as the fall of Mosul came as a great shock, the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives since 2003 is almost certainly smaller as compared to those who have died in Syria since 2013 (Page, 2015, p.3). ISIS has exploited the Syrian conflict, which has been very murderous leading to many internally displaced persons and refugees. ISIS considers Syria important because of the level of violence as well as the available state’s strategic allegiance. ISIS is different from the other Syrian rebel groups because it is working towards an Islamic emirate that connects Iraq and Syria. Hitherto, the group has achieved significant military success; for instance, they managed to take over Raqqa, the first Syrian provincial capital to be captured by rebels. Currently, ISIS has seized a number of towns in Syria and Iraq and use the brutal rule in the seized areas. At first, the group depended on donations from rich persons in the Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait who were supporting the group’s fight against Syria regime. Presently, the group has seized a number of oil fields in the eastern Syria; thus, makes a lot of money by selling some of the oil to the black market and also back to the Syrian government. Furthermore, the group has been selling plundered antiquities from both Iraqi and Syrian historical sites. At the moment, the Syrian government forces are relying on artillery and aerial bombardment from coalition forces to fight ISIS. However, the government military resources are constrained by the large number of rebels in Syria using artillery to shell cities and perform unselective bombings and massacres. ISIS capitalised on Syrian government shortcoming to launch attacks in various parts of the country. This far, the group has been able to take a number of key Syrian government held towns as well as military bases. Furthermore, the group has managed to retain its position along the Euphrates River in the eastern Syria (Jenkins, 2015). The reinforced Kurdish defence and coalition air strikes have prevented the group from taking Kobani, a Syrian close to the Turkey border. In spite of the heavy losses attributed to the coalition air strikes, ISIS has continued launching attacks on Kurdish positions and has resolutely defended its position against counterattacks for the Kurdish forces. According to Jenkins (2015), retaking towns and cities held ISIS in Syria need costly house-to-house combat. Although the combined forces of Iraqi, Turkish, and Syrian Kurds have are making some considerable progress in the northern Syria, threats by the Turkish president to use Turkish forces in order to stop the Kurdish from further advancing has dented the search for a sustainable solution in the conflict between Syria and ISIS. The Perceived System of Systems Engineering Process, Situation or Problem Presently, efforts to understand the modern systems lifecycle have been achieved through the systems engineering; therefore, the process of managing the organisation, use, and delivery of systems is commonly referred to as systems engineering management. In systems engineering, the key driver to success is the process through which integration of information, processes, people and mechanisms of problem-solving are integrated. In the past, the systems engineering principles were largely developed and used in the government projects like communications satellites, manned space flight, and so forth. Such projects carried differences like high system complexity with extreme design limitations, high technological risk, a need for far-reaching answers, as well as auditability. Even though the complexity of such systems was not foreseen by the systems theory’s forefathers, the majority of the existing complex projects are of systems for solving complex engineering problems. As suggested by Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p.7), a systems approach assists analysts to simultaneously improve comprehensiveness as well as comprehensibility. In order for the analysts to concentrate on the key insights, a set of filters have been imposed by the conflict systems mapping. Systems thinking differentiates between dynamic and detail complexity, and instead of trying to show every variable present within the system, it endeavours to capture the dynamics and structural interrelationships of the system. Intrinsically, systems thinking are considered to be crucial for the conflict assessment frameworks and tools. The majority of such tools begin from the very systemic principle that conflict cannot be comprehended as an issue of the economy, governance, or human rights; instead, the conflict mitigators and drivers are dynamic, interdependent, and complex. Systems engineering professionals are facing the problem of considering the integration of technological, organisational, and human, issues in every aspect of the life cycle activities whose objective is to bring about a support and fielding of all type of systems. Because of the current IT globalisation trends, system engineering professionals are facing organisational difficulties and some potential conflict and dysfunctional behaviour circumstances. Such issues happen as the concepts of systems management are extended while trying to address international integration, coalition development, as well as the management of broadly distributed systems. The ISIS and Syria conflict is an exceedingly complex system having evolutionary mechanisms and adaptive structures. Furthermore, it is a system having interconnected parts and demonstrates unfathomable properties that can only be understood by analysing as well as dissecting the individual components’ properties. The conflict between ISIS and Syria can be understood deeply through the system thinking approach. According to Gallo (2012, p.159), system thinking has key elements that make it completely different from the linear forms of reasoning: definition of boundaries, causal loops and feedbacks, different interconnected subsystems, activity and state variables, and delays. BACKGROUND Definition of terms A system according to Arnold and Wade (2015, p.670) can be defined as a group of items created regularly with the objective of forming a unified whole. A system of systems can be defined as the integration of numerous operatable and independent constituent systems that are networked together for a certain period with the objective of achieving the desired goal. Systems thinking is a management discipline associated with knowing the system through the analysis of the interactions and linkages between the components comprising the entireness of the defined system (Arnold & Wade, 2015, p.675). Therefore, system thinking can be defined as a set of synergistic analytic skills utilised to enhance the ability to understand and identify systems, predict their behaviours, as well as develop modifications to the systems with the objective of producing the sought after effects. A complex system can be described as a system, which is complex. Normally, complex systems include a society, a belief system, a biological organism, and so forth. Complex problem solving is defined as the ability of people to manage tasks, which are dynamic, complex, dynamic and opaque. Therefore, complex problem solving involves interacting successfully with the dynamic task environments, whereby some of the environment’s regularities may be discovered only by exploring and integrating the information achieved in that process. A conflict can be defined as an active disagreement between people or nations having opposing principles or opinions. Relevant Theories/Research and Prior Development Social conflict as demonstrated in Galtung (1958) book is a struggle steered by individuals for a common cause. Social conflicts have two characteristics: they involve domination and coercive power and they assume that people struggle for ‘common interest’ rather than personal interests. Conflict theory utilises the game theory with the objective of expounding the adversaries’ strategy as game players. This is not a zero-sum-game because there is no unique loser or winner. In a pure conflict strategy, the game theory yields some understanding as well as advice while on the action strategy where conflict is combined with mutual dependence the game theory yields no comparable advice or insight. According to Mehrdad (2009, p.824), the strategic conflict theory methodology has some shortcomings; for instance, the theory assumes that the agents are rational because the participants rationally and coolly measure their advantages in relation to the consistent value system. Basically, in social conflicts like revolutions or wars, the difference between benefits and costs is indistinct because all participants conduct themselves as if they are representing each other. In such a situation, their behaviour and social identity eclipse their personal interests. For this reason, dying for a ‘cause’ according to Mehrdad (2009) is considered to be both a cost and a benefit. Furthermore, people taking part in social movement lack constant choices; therefore, their social realities’ knowledge is gained through participation. In game theory, the agents should know their strategies as well as costs/benefits. This does not connote that uncertainty has been ignored by the game theory; instead, the parametrical form of uncertainty is incorporated where the likelihood of an event occurrence and the corresponding costs, strategy, and benefits related to the event are known in advance. Therefore, game theory omits only the radical uncertainty and presumes the events predictability. Social conflict between nations and rebel groups has existed for many years, and this has become a threat to both the global security and peace. For this reason, peacekeeping missions were approved by the Security Council with the objective of intervening in various intra-state conflicts like in Somalia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Angola as well as Mozambique. As of 2013, the Security Council has approved approximately 51 peacekeeping missions, especially in the fragile states with the objective of managing the intra-state armed conflicts (Schulenburg, 2014, p.3). Besides the UN interference, foreign troops have also been used to intervene in some intra-state conflicts. According to Schulenburg (2014, p.3) the failing nations and areas plagued with intra-state conflicts have become the breeding grounds for non-state actors who are very powerful, highly motivated and well-armed. Such non-state actors are not just challenging the existing regime, but are also controlling large territories. Even though most of the armed conflicts are normally local, the majority of the radical non-state actors such as ISIS are now operating globally. For this reason, systems thinking have been proposed an important tool for connecting the analysis and strategy as well as using the analytic narrative achieved through the process of conflict to develop solutions. According to Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p.8), the process of generating system maps in systems thinking normally provide important insights in different areas, which could enable users design programs, strategies and policies that could promote practical transformation in the conflict. Basically, systems maps are important because they synthesise analysis through the interpretation of interrelationships and patterns across factors, such as the key dynamics. Furthermore, systems maps allow the analysts to find leverage points for change. According to Li et al. (2012, p.209), systems thinking experience some existential challenge that could render it unsuitable to foresee the emerging challenges. Li et al. (2012) suggest that systems thinking could survive in the turbulent time if the users explore other disciplines with the objective of actively searching for new insights. Learning from the other disciplines can enable the system users to inject new impetus that could revitalise and develop themselves. In view to conflict resolution, Li et al. (2012) posits that conflict resolution has recently developed on both practical and theoretical fronts; therefore, system thinking approach can be used as conflict resolution tool since it offers a deep insights on how to manage solve complex problems and messy situation in the midst of conflicts. Context of SoS and the Case Doing development in conflict-affected environments is always very challenging and is exacerbated by the difficulty of handling the complexity. The interconnectedness between various sectors and events, as well as their dynamic relationship, creates a challenge in designing and executing effective programming and policies that could help lessen the complexity by placing emphasis on the areas that are manageable. In the Syria and ISIS complex problem, programs’ effectiveness has continually been affected by the events on-the-ground, which are normally beyond the project scope. Even though policy makers are trying to solve this complexity, ‘list of lists’ keep emerging; thus, making the program planning more and more difficult. For this reason, systems thinking, especially systems mapping is an effective tool that could help solve this dilemma. According to Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p.28), systems thinking is used to generate complex environments’ narratives (rich assessments) that allow for effective program implementation and monitoring as well as gaining knowledge from the experience. Systems mapping can be used to define factors attributed to the warring nations in terms of dynamic feedback loops. Essentially, these feedback loops can undermine or amplify the effect of the conflict resolution programs. Systems maps can also be used for identifying leverage points, which consequently can help the users to aim their efforts as well as formulate sustainable evaluation and monitoring processes. Therefore, systems thinking could result in a sustainable societal change within the complex environments such as Syria. Furthermore, the utilisation of systems thinking approach could facilitate a systems practice at the conflict between ISIS and Syria. As suggested by Ricigliano and Chigas (2011, p.28) having knowledge about the key dynamics can make an organisation more adaptive and flexible. Conflicts, as pointed out by Gallo (2012, p.172), are extremely complex and do not pursue the linear type of thinking commonly utilised in analysing conflicts. Basically, this evidenced by the modern-day conflicts, which are conflicts intrastate instead of the interstate, and in countries like Syria, the state has lost power to other powers such as ISIS which operates both at transnational level as well as regional level. In his article, Gallo (2012) has used a number of examples with the objective of demonstrating the crucial role played by systems modelling and thinking in conflict analysis. As the learning tools, system models can commendably help making decisions regarding the ISIS and Syria conflict and could be used to reduce violence. Systems thinking can be used to solve the problem of warring nations since no problem subsists independently; every problem is part of a larger interacting system.  Soft thinking could be utilised to analyse the Syria and ISIS situation with the objective of finding an efficient way to a defined end. Importantly, the hallmarks of systems thinking are the inclination of new outcomes and strategies to emerge, which could not be understood at the onset of the process. Therefore, a major investment should be made on constructing a path towards a systems practice and building on everything that emerges. Clearly, system thinking approach could facilitate the capturing of the complexity and richness of a conflict context with the objective of offering a broad synopsis of the wicked problem. Given that the ISIS and Syria conflict is recurring, systems thinking may be used because the formulated policies have not succeeded to solve the problem. System thinking can be used to identify high-leverage points that could change the conflict dynamics in Syria. 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 the 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. Read More