The use of a mix of economic and military elements definitely does increase the chances of success in third-party interventions in intrastate conflicts. So too does the suggestion of the intervention by a large nation, due to its ability to bring into play a greater economic and military might, but that would be subject to the motivation of the large nation in the third-party intervention, and its intervention accepted with trust by all the conflicting elements. However, the suggestion that intervention with policies weighted in favor of the government does not go down well, as the issue of fairness in approach is absent.The author points out on the basis of the analysis that ideological reasons are the cause for a larger number of intrastate conflicts. This may have arisen as the data analyzed is from immediately after the Second World War, and thus takes into consideration a very large period of the Cold War era. An analysis of the same data bit limited to the last two decades will show that ethnic and religious causes lie behind more of the intrastate that has occurred and continues to be witnessed around the world. This suggests that concerted action is likely to be the prescription for successful third-party intervention in intrastate conflicts. NATO may have been successful in Europe, but it highly unlikely that it will be accepted in the other regions of the world. There is no need to cast a net wide.