I'd pretty much concur with your analysis, from a mainland based perspective.
Mind you, there's a definite (and horrible) element to me of "playing the waiting game." In essence, both sides had to be convinced that they weren't going to get "total victory" and that came in part only with the passage of time.
That's a horrible thought because I'm suggesting that there wasn't many good ways to reduce the bloodshed.
I'll caveat by saying there were key moments, especially at the beginning, but one or two in the middle that might have been seized by one side or the other to make a difference, but I do feel for much of the middle period both sides were still so swept up in dreams of "total victory" that it's hard to see what could have been done to shorten the conflict.
I should note some extra factors:
So I'd add the notion that you need to engage with any official backers where possible as they can help influence the situation, not with immediate impact perhaps, but over time.
There was some talk very early on about all sorts of things, including an invasion of the North.
for instance, if italy had not been part of the EU, bossi and the lega would have been able to do much more damage in italy.
as for nipping terrorism in the bud by taking care of needs, you put it brilliantly!
the parallel with terrible diet, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and the disease industry is all too obvious.
terrorists, and the evil fuckers who sponsor and encourage them, are like cancer cells in the population.
we need to remove the causes, not panic, or just seek prowess in chopping out tumours, poisoning or blasting them with death rays, that take a lot of healthy tissue out as well, (civil rights).
etc. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
