Beyond the Force of Arms: The Imperative of Track Two Diplomacy in Statecraft

By Jeremy Ive, RPI Senior Advisor 

Introduction

The art of modern statecraft is perpetually tested by the gap between military capabilities and sustainable political outcomes. When international actors seek to address entrenched authoritarianism or regional instability, both military pressure and smart power strategies are frequently deployed to degrade hostile regimes and open pathways for change. However, history demonstrates that external force alone operates as a blunt instrument. Without a deliberate, inclusive architecture to guide the transition, the collapse of a central authority routinely gives way to administrative vacuums, sectarian fragmentation and deep civil strife. 

To move beyond the recurrent failures of past interventions, statecraft must recognise that military enablement is only as durable as the political consensus that underpins it. Bridging the gap between armed intervention and a stable future requires an intentional, structured commitment to inclusive dialogue and long-term peacebuilding. When external actors treat force as a standalone solution rather than engaging in comprehensive, inclusive post-conflict vision-building, the intervention inevitably generates chaos, fragmentation and destruction. 

Three recent failures of international intervention need to be borne in mind.

1. Iraq (2003): The Administrative Vacuum and Sectarian Splintering

• Disbanding the Army and Civil Service: Post-invasion authorities committed the fatal error of dismantling the Iraqi military and purging trained administrators through de-Baathification. This threw thousands of armed personnel and skilled professionals out of work overnight.
• The Sectarian Vacuum: Rather than fostering stability, this abrupt dissolution shattered institutional continuity. It left a profound vacuum that was swiftly filled by competing sectarian militias and insurgent networks, institutionalising ethnic and religious divisions and plunging the country toward civil strife.

2. Afghanistan (2001–2022): Centralised Imposition Over a Representative Federal Compact

• Holding Territory Without Inclusion: The two-decade campaign attempted to project and maintain control over the entire country through centralized, externally backed governance in Kabul, failing to allow for a more genuinely representative, decentralized federal structure.
• Alienation of the Periphery: By refusing to accommodate regional, ethnic, and local power dynamics through a broad-based political compact, the intervention alienated the broader population. It relied on kinetic pressure and military dominance rather than building a “hearts and minds” consensus, ensuring that the regime remained brittle and ultimately collapsed back into insurgency

3. Libya (2011): Mission Creep and Total Destruction

• From Protection to Regime Erasure: The international intervention began under the narrow mandate of protecting civilians in Benghazi, but rapidly escalated into a full-scale campaign of air power and destruction that targeted Tripoli and pulverised the regime’s infrastructure.
• Leaving a Ruin: By expanding force to total regime elimination without a structured, resourced Track Two process or a post-conflict vision for governance, the intervention left the entire country as a fractured ruin divided among armed militias and competing factions.

All three interventions failed in this regard due to the following structural shortcomings:

• Reliance on Force as a Blunt Instrument: The mere imposition of external pressure and destruction from the air operates as a blunt instrument that inevitably leaves devastation and confusion in its wake. 
• Absence of a Post-Conflict Vision: What all three of these situations critically lacked was a coherent and fully internationally representative post-conflict vision. 
• Overreliance on External Force: These interventions falsely assumed that externally applied force, destruction, and pressure could achieve a stable outcome on their own without a properly facilitated and resourced comprehensive Track Two process. 

Smart Power, Internal Empowerment, and the Need for a Post-Conflict Vision

While smart power, involving outreach to and empowerment of internal actors, is preferable to the sheer external application of force, this highlights a crucial distinction in modern statecraft. External kinetic pressure and military force alone operate as blunt instruments that leave devastation, confusion, and a lack of a coherent post-conflict vision in their wake

Asymmetric enablement—such as activating peripheral populations, co-opting professional security elements, and interdicting economic lifelines—are vital for breaking an authoritarian monopoly, but they remain dangerous tools if left unguided by a political destination. Without a deliberate effort to forge a “hearts and minds” consensus across key emergent players, the collapse of a regime risks plunging a nation into chaos, ethnic strife, and fragmentation. 

The Essential Role of Track Two Consensus-Building

To prevent the vacuum left by external pressure from turning into civil conflict, military degradation must be paired with a comprehensive, inclusive political architecture:

• Inclusion of Diverse Factions: A sustainable transition requires bringing together regional, ethnic, and minority communities alongside secular republicans, civil society leaders, and disaffected military figures through a dedicated Track Two process. 
• Building a Federal Compact: This intermediate-level facilitation is necessary to construct a concrete, unified federal vision that guarantees regional autonomy, cultural and linguistic rights, and equitable power-sharing under a decentralised governance model. 
• Securing the Future: By establishing a non-partisan framework of common values and mutual recognition before or during the transition, key stakeholders can align around a 
• shared future rather than defaulting to mutual suspicion and sectarian division. 

The Application of External Force, and the Failure of Post-Conflict Vision

That externally applied force, military destruction, and coercive pressure serve as blunt instruments is starkly illustrated by modern interventions. In cases such as Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001–2022), and Libya (2011), military campaigns frequently relying heavily on technological superiority and air power—successfully unseated entrenched regimes but left deep devastation and systemic confusion in their wake. 

The primary structural flaw across all three interventions was the absence of a coherent, inclusive, and internationally representative post-conflict vision. External actors routinely assumed that the removal of a dictator or a hostile regime would organically generate a stable, democratic alternative. However, external pressure alone cannot synthesise a shared political community. Without a deeply rooted, indigenous framework for governance, power vacuums emerge, often filled by sectarian fragmentation, insurgency, or renewed authoritarianism. The underlying premise that external force can unilaterally achieve a viable political settlement without a properly facilitated and resourced Track Two process is fundamentally mistaken. 

The Role of Track Two Diplomacy

Track Two diplomacy—operating on an intermediate, low-profile level among middle-range leaders with influence extending to both high-level policymakers and the grassroots—provides the necessary architecture to mend these failures. Unlike high-stakes Track One negotiations that focus on immediate settlements under intense public and political scrutiny, Track Two processes take a middle-distance focus. They systematically address the frameworks for a sustainable post-conflict or transitional settlement. 

Through the lens of relational peacebuilding, a comprehensive Track Two process achieves what military power cannot by operating across five core relational principles:

• Parity: Fostering mutual dignity and respect in a neutral location where participants attend in their personal capacity, minimising destructive jockeying for power. 
• Directness: Creating safe, confidential environments for face-to-face storytelling and trust-building among former adversaries. 
• Continuity: Maintaining stable relationships over extended periods (typically three to four years) to allow genuine attitude changes and growing consensus to take root. 
• Multiplexity: Building a comprehensive breadth of knowledge concerning not only individual backgrounds and motivations but also organisational goals and structural constraints. 
• Commonality: Binding participants together around a shared purpose of peaceful, just resolution based on common human dignity, transcending ethnic, ideological, or class divides. 

Track Two in a Different Context

To understand how a Track Two process functions outside high-intensity post-intervention zones, let us consider a context in which official Track One channels have completely stalled due to deeply entrenched lines of conflict.  While official Track One, or even behind-the-scenes “Track One and a Half” talks may continue, they are not able to bring about the broadly based consensus necessary for a successful and sustainable outcome.

In such a scenario, a credible, neutral convening organisation initiates a Track Two process by engaging key leadership networks through trusted persons of influence. Rather than bringing political representatives to the table—who are bound by official state platforms—the process gathers influential advisors, civil society leaders, economists, and community figures acting in a personal capacity. 

1. The Catalyst Phase: Independent facilitators or “catalysts” conduct confidential pre-negotiation consultations with all principal factions to identify underlying sticking points, such as resource distribution, minority rights, or security guarantees, establishing a foundation of trust based on truth and justice. 
2. The Consensus-Building Phase: Running parallel to quiet catalyst work, participants engage in regular multi-day sessions every three to four months. Supported by rigorous research on constitutional, economic, and social frameworks, they systematically tackle foundational topics. 
3. Drafting Non-Partisan Frameworks: Over time, the core group develops a shared, non-partisan blueprint for the future—a framework that offers a transforming critique of present injustices while providing concrete mechanisms that diverse political groupings can accept. 
4. Feeding Back into Policy: Because the participants maintain active channels to high-level policymakers and local grassroots constituencies, this emerging consensus gradually shifts public debate and informs official decision-makers, creating the necessary public mandate and structure

Conclusion

Ultimately, the lessons of modern international interventions make it clear that power without a shared post-conflict vision results in devastation rather than renewal. While smart power and strategic enablement can effectively fracture an authoritarian monopoly, they remain perilous tools if left unguided by a coherent political destination. Preventing chaos, ethnic strife, and structural collapse demands more than the mere removal of a regime; it requires the painstaking cultivation of a “hearts and minds” consensus across all key emergent players. By embedding robust Track Two diplomacy—anchored in principles of parity, directness, continuity, multiplexity, and commonality—nations can transform military disruption into a structured, representative, and enduring federal compact for the future.