When Words Hurt: How Verbal Attacks on ISIS Increased Violence Against Civilians

• In Event: Advances in Conflict Processes

Abstract

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. In confronting ISIS, foreign governments relied heavily on threats, demands, denunciations, and other forms of verbal conflict. Did these efforts at verbal coercion have any effect on ISIS's behavior? We use Bayesian structural vector autoregression models to analyze daily event data on interactions between ISIS and foreign governments for the 2014--2020 period. We find that verbal conflict initiated by governments had the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than deterring ISIS from attacking civilians, verbal conflict substantially increased those attacks. For every 3.15 instances of verbal conflict, ISIS launched one additional attack on civilians. Notably, ISIS reacted more strongly to verbal conflict than to military actions, such as airstrikes and ground campaigns. Additional empirical analyses, combined with evidence from ISIS's publications and public statements, suggest that this effect resulted from a perceived "credibility deficit." Terrorists use terror attacks to signal that they are capable of inflicting pain and suffering on civilian targets. Government efforts at coercing terrorists verbally, rather than militarily, reflect an underestimation of the terrorists' capabilities and resolve. In an effort to solidify their reputations, terrorists engage in further, more extreme violence. We extend the analysis to al-Qaeda in Iraq and Boko Haram and find similar patterns. In short, verbal attacks on terrorist organizations lead to increased violence against civilians.

Authors

• Iliyan Iliev, University of Southern Mississippi

• Nahrain Senharib Rasho, University of California, Davis

• Brandon J. Kinne, University of California, Davis