While many academics propose a ‘crisis’ of Liberal Peacebuilding or champion alternative approaches (such as the so-called Victor’s Justice or Hybrid methodologies), its mixed track record should not distract from its advantages. Instead, its primary architects, such as the United States, should seek to reform the framework against its previous pitfalls rather than discard it. Incorporating elements of locally owned Security Sector Reform (SSR) and promoting indigenous and bottom-up Transitional Justice efforts are valuable for strengthening peacebuilding efforts and gaining local ownership. These two reforms can bolster the reception of Liberal Peacebuilding and undermine critiques targeting “foreign imposition.”

Moreover, employing in-country experts as leadership, engaging local peacebuilders, and prioritizing SSR over counterinsurgency are valuable for building trust between local elites, the citizenry, and the mission leadership. Furthermore, increasing legal accountability and liability for mission leadership and peacekeeping forces will demonstrate a commitment to the populations these missions seek to save. The nexus of these reforms will preserve Liberal Peacebuilding’s ideological and objectives-based foundation and provide bottom-up elements that address many of its empirical pitfalls.