This issue is incredibly complex because it sits right at the intersection of long-term regional stability and the urgent need for fiscal accountability. On one hand, advocates might argue that formalizing the status of these individuals is a pragmatic step to prevent them from slipping back into insurgency, which could ultimately save lives and resources in the long run. However, the designation of these people as dead-on-arrival suggests significant gaps in oversight that make it hard for the public to trust that these funds are reaching genuine peacekeepers rather than ghost accounts. Whether this leads to lasting peace or further instability depends entirely on whether the government can provide a transparent audit of the program to prove that these 744 individuals are actually playing a constructive role in reconciliation. Without that level of openness, it is easy to see why so many people view this as a potential sign of systemic corruption rather than a genuine security strategy.