More fuel for the COIN debate from Condra et al.:
This paper analyzes the impact of civilian casualties on insurgent violence in the conflict in Afghanistan using micro-level, geocoded data on civilian casualties and violence between International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) units and insurgents. We employ a series of analytic comparisons to distinguish between four prominent theories on the how civilian casualties may affect violence: revenge, recruitment, population-provided information, and insurgent group capacity. Separating out levels of future violence from long-run trends (a 3-period moving average) allows us to distinguish the short-run ‘information’ and ‘capacity’ effects from the longer run ‘recruiting’ and ‘revenge’ effects. Examining differences in the impact of events that kill women and children from those that kill men allows us to separate the ‘information’ and ‘capacity’ effects. Studying how local responses to local civilian casualties differ from local response to civilians casualties in other parts of the country helps disentangle the ‘recruiting’ and ‘revenge’ effects. [...]
In Afghanistan we find strong evidence for a revenge effect in that local exposure to ISAF generated civilian casualties drives increased insurgent
violence over the long-run. Matching districts with similar past trends in violence shows that counterinsurgent-generated civilian casualties from a typical incident are responsible for 6 additional violent incidents in an average sized district in the following 6 weeks. There is no evidence of short run effects in Afghanistan, thus ruling out the information and the capacity mechanisms. Critically, we find no evidence of a similar reaction to civilian casualties in Iraq, suggesting insurgents‘ mobilizing tools may be quite conflict-specific. Our results show that if counterinsurgent forces in Afghanistan wish to minimize insurgent recruitment, they must minimize harm to civilians despite the greater risk this entails.
This paper analyzes the impact of civilian casualties on insurgent violence in the conflict in Afghanistan using micro-level, geocoded data on civilian casualties and violence between International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) units and insurgents. We employ a series of analytic comparisons to distinguish between four prominent theories on the how civilian casualties may affect violence: revenge, recruitment, population-provided information, and insurgent group capacity. Separating out levels of future violence from long-run trends (a 3-period moving average) allows us to distinguish the short-run ‘information’ and ‘capacity’ effects from the longer run ‘recruiting’ and ‘revenge’ effects. Examining differences in the impact of events that kill women and children from those that kill men allows us to separate the ‘information’ and ‘capacity’ effects. Studying how local responses to local civilian casualties differ from local response to civilians casualties in other parts of the country helps disentangle the ‘recruiting’ and ‘revenge’ effects. [...]
In Afghanistan we find strong evidence for a revenge effect in that local exposure to ISAF generated civilian casualties drives increased insurgent
violence over the long-run. Matching districts with similar past trends in violence shows that counterinsurgent-generated civilian casualties from a typical incident are responsible for 6 additional violent incidents in an average sized district in the following 6 weeks. There is no evidence of short run effects in Afghanistan, thus ruling out the information and the capacity mechanisms. Critically, we find no evidence of a similar reaction to civilian casualties in Iraq, suggesting insurgents‘ mobilizing tools may be quite conflict-specific. Our results show that if counterinsurgent forces in Afghanistan wish to minimize insurgent recruitment, they must minimize harm to civilians despite the greater risk this entails.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Loading
