Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Rage Against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars

  • Jason Lyall (a1) and Isaiah Wilson (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

During the nineteenth century, states routinely defeated insurgent foes. Over the twentieth century, however, this pattern reversed itself, with states increasingly less likely to defeat insurgents or avoid meeting at least some of their demands. What accounts for this pattern of outcomes in counterinsurgency (COIN) wars? We argue that increasing mechanization within state militaries after World War I is primarily responsible for this shift. Unlike their nineteenth-century predecessors, modern militaries possess force structures that inhibit information collection among local populations. This not only complicates the process of sifting insurgents from noncombatants but increases the difficulty of selectively applying rewards and punishment among the fence-sitting population. Modern militaries may therefore inadvertently fuel, rather than deter, insurgencies. We test this argument with a new data set of 286 insurgencies (1800–2005) and a paired comparison of two U.S. Army divisions in Iraq (2003–2004). We find that higher levels of mechanization, along with external support for insurgents and the counterinsurgent's status as an occupier, are associated with an increased probability of state defeat. By contrast, we find only partial support for conventional power- and regime-based explanations, and no support for the view that rough terrain favors insurgent success.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Ivan Arreguín-Toft . 2001. How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. International Security 26 (1):93128.

Larry M. Bartels 1996. Pooling Disparate Observations. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):905–42.

Eliot A. Cohen 1984. Constraints on America's Conduct of Small Wars. International Security 9 (2):151–81.

Paul Collier , and Anke Hoeffler . 2004. Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers 56 (4):563–95.

Alexander B. Downes 2006. Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: The Causes of Civilian Victimization in War. International Security 30 (4):152–95.

Nils Petter; Peter Wallensteen Gleditsch , Mikael Eriksson , Margareta Sollenberg , and Håvard Strand . 2002. Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset. Journal of Peace Research 39 (5):615–37.

Håvard Hegre , and Nicholas Sambanis . 2006. Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (4):509–35.

Keith Jaggers , and Ted Robert Gurr . 1995. Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4):469–82.

Bruce W. Jentleson 1992. The Pretty Prudent Public: Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force. International Studies Quarterly 36 (1):4974.

Dominic Johnson , and J. Madin . 2008. Population Models and Counter-Insurgency Strategies. In Natural Security: A Darwinian Approach to a Dangerous World, edited by Raphael D. Sargarin and Terrence Taylor , 159–85. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gary King , Michael Tomz , and Jason Wittenberg . 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347–61.

Moshe Kress . 2002. Operational Logistics: The Art and Science of Sustaining Military Operations. New York: Springer.

Patrick M. Regan 2002. Third-Party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (1):5573.

Nicholas Sambanis . 2001. Do Ethnic and Nonethnic Civil Wars Have the Same Causes? A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry (Part 1). Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (3):259–82.

Isaiah Wilson III 2007. Thinking Beyond War: Civil-Military Relations and Why America Fails to Win the Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 20
Total number of PDF views: 359 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 682 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.