Draining the Sea by Filling the Graves: Investigating the Effectiveness of Indiscriminate Violence as a Counterinsurgency Strategy

Downes, Alexander B.

doi:10.1080/13698240701699631

Cited by 98 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While this distinction has been made before (see Mason and Krane, 1989), Kalyvas's (2006) widely cited study brought increased scholarly attention to the study of violence in civil wars, resulting in numerous publications (e.g. Condra and Shapiro, 2012;Downes, 2007;Lyall, 2009;Lyall and Wilson;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that seek to explain the effects of indiscriminate violence on the conflict process follow hypotheses of either alienation or deterrence resulting from the use of indiscriminate violence (Downes, 2007;Lyall, 2009;Lyall and Wilson, 2009;Linke et al, 2012). With an overwhelming focus on the conflict process leading to civilian victimization or civilian victimization affecting the conflict process, too little attention has been given to the exogenous determinants of the type of violence used in civil wars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geographic determinants of indiscriminate violence in civil wars

Schütte

2015

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What determines the type of violence used by military actors in civil wars? Drawing on Kalyvas's ''information problem'' and Boulding's ''loss of strength gradient'', this paper proposes a simple model of how the violence becomes more indiscriminate as a function of distance from the actors' power centers. The proposed mechanism is a growing inability of the actors to distinguish between collaborators of the adversary and innocent bystanders. Tested on the conflict event level for 11 cases of insurgency, the results indicate that a simple distance-decay mechanism can explain the occurrence of indiscriminate violence to a large extent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic determinants of indiscriminate violence in civil wars

Schütte

2015

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The defection of civilians from the insurgents to the incumbents diminishes insurgent control and increases the likelihood of indiscriminate insurgent violence (Kalyvas 1999:269, 276;2006:224-226). Faced with hostile civilians and a declining level of control, insurgents respond violently, employing more indiscriminate forms of violence where they have weaker levels of control (Downes 2007(Downes :424, 2008Eck and Hultman 2007:241;Raleigh 2012:469-470;Weinstein 2007:203-204;Wood 2010). In other words, we expect a civilian defense force will produce an increase in insurgent attacks towards the civilian populations that no longer support them.…”

Section: The Wider Effects Of Civilianizing Warfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Civilianizing Civil Conflict: Civilian Defense Militias and the Logic of Violence in Intrastate Conflict

Clayton¹,

Thomson²

2016

int stud q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how civilian defense militias shape violence during civil war. We define civilian defense forces as a sedentary and defensive form of pro-government militia that incumbents often use to harness the participation of civilians during a counterinsurgency campaign. We argue that civilian defense forces reduce the problem of insurgent identification. This leads to a reduction in state violence against civilians. However, we also claim that these actors undermine civilian support for insurgents, which leads to an increase

show abstract

“…If high rates of violence do take place, they will generally be a result of some miscalculation or erroneous assumption about civilian choice (Kalyvas, 2006, 162-65). This view has been disputed by a parallel body of research on cases where repression and mass killing contributed to military success (Hibbs, 1973;Tilly, 1978;Stoll, 1993;Downes, 2006Downes, , 2007Lyall, 2009Lyall, , 2010. In this perspective, civilians can be compelled to support the biggest killer, "bandwagoning" with the side that shows itself willing and capable of inflicting great physical harm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Epidemic Model of Violence and Public Support in Civil War

Zhukov

2013

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do civilians respond to violence in civil war, and how do these responses shape combatants’ coercive strategies? Conventional wisdom expects civilian victimization to backfire, as a security-minded public “balances” against the side posing the greatest threat to its livelihood and survival. Yet combatants often expect a terrorized population to do the opposite, “bandwagoning” with those most willing and capable to inflict harm. Using an epidemic model of popular support dynamics, I explore the logic of balancing and bandwagoning in irregular civil war. I argue that when civilian strategy is clearly communicated to combatants, civilians are always better off balancing, and combatants are better off avoiding punishment. When civilian choice is not observed, the balancing equilibrium breaks down and patterns of violence depend on the local balance of power. The model’s results challenge the view that selective violence is most common in areas of incomplete control. Due to uncertainty over civilian behavior, violence in both divided and perfectly controlled areas can occur in equilibrium, inflicting great costs on civilians. I compare these predictions against the historical record of Soviet counterinsurgency in Western Ukraine, using new micro-level data from the declassified archives of the Soviet secret police.

show abstract

Draining the Sea by Filling the Graves: Investigating the Effectiveness of Indiscriminate Violence as a Counterinsurgency Strategy

Cited by 98 publications

References 2 publications

Geographic determinants of indiscriminate violence in civil wars

Geographic determinants of indiscriminate violence in civil wars

Civilianizing Civil Conflict: Civilian Defense Militias and the Logic of Violence in Intrastate Conflict

An Epidemic Model of Violence and Public Support in Civil War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About