Responses to interstate conflict

[Vermilliona]

Hey y'all,

Just wondering, am I the only one finding responses to interstate conflicts to be annoying to define?
Afghanistan is my main interstate case-study (being predictable and going with the one in the book, goodbye over 40) and for example, I don't see how any of the US' or ISAF's actions can be a response to the conflict, since they are the ones who started the war and continue to be engaged in it - supposedly a response to a conflict has to be from an actor that isn't engaged in it?

The way I see it, everything that an actor who is engaged does is part of the conflict and not a response to it. And that pretty much means responses to Afghanistan would be like... countries condemning it... or something. This is probably just over-thinking on my part or bad phrasing on Anna-Louise's, but how are you guys approaching responses to interstate conflicts? Do you count military actions by fighting sides as responses?

Thanks in advance!

[achre]

Too late to change to Syria? 
Entry into an existing conflict is a response informed by the presence of an interstate conflict, and is therefore a response to it.
My understanding of of the War in Afghanistan (however limited it might be) is that the US's entry was, supposedly, a response to the extant Afghan civil war, which would make it a response to intrastate conflict, or, if you prefer, a response to the global threat of terrorism. The participation of countries in support of the US following this first invasion would then be responses to interstate conflict, as they were informed by the situation.
The only reason the US would be excluded from being a response to an interstate conflict is the fact that there was no interstate conflict between Afghanistan and some other state at the time they invaded. Not because they were participants.

[Vermilliona]

Mm, I spoke with my teacher today and it's clearer now - it's just that there's a point when the invading state's actions stop being part of the cause (since their invasion began the conflict) and start being a response and it annoys me  I'm already doing Syria as my intrastate one, it'll be interesting to see whether it develops into inter sometime soon. Thanks for your help!

[maddimarvel]

Too late to change to Syria? 
Entry into an existing conflict is a response informed by the presence of an interstate conflict, and is therefore a response to it.
My understanding of of the War in Afghanistan (however limited it might be) is that the US's entry was, supposedly, a response to the extant Afghan civil war, which would make it a response to intrastate conflict, or, if you prefer, a response to the global threat of terrorism. The participation of countries in support of the US following this first invasion would then be responses to interstate conflict, as they were informed by the situation.
The only reason the US would be excluded from being a response to an interstate conflict is the fact that there was no interstate conflict between Afghanistan and some other state at the time they invaded. Not because they were participants.

That's what I was going to say. Syria is a good interstate conflict to use.