Fighting Ethno-Territorial Civil Wars: Conventional and Guerrilla Strategies

• In Event: Political Science Education & Comparative Politics of Developing Countries 1 Virtual Poster Session
  In Virtual Poster Session: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries Virtual Poster Session 1

Abstract

In ethno-territorial civil wars, which factors influence whether rebels choose and retain conventional warfare as their primary military strategy throughout the conflict, or whether they use guerrilla warfare as a primary strategy during periods judged to be less advantageous to conventional warfare? The existing literature almost exclusively emphasizes relative power as the determining factor: rebels use guerrilla warfare because they typically lack the capability to fight conventional wars effectively against states. We find some support for this hypothesis: Ethno-territorial rebels are much more likely to fight exclusively conventional wars when external states intervene conventionally on the rebel side. We also find that rebel leaders with more intense, far-reaching nationalist goals are more likely to employ guerrilla warfare as a primary war strategy. For such leaders, the higher costs of using guerrilla methods pending an eventual transition to conventional warfare are made more acceptable by a higher valuation of the far-reaching gains delivered by military victory—gains expected to be made more likely by interim periods in which guerrilla warfare is the primary strategy. Turning to other factors, we do not find that status quo conditions or a high level of state democracy have a significant influence.

Author

• Shale Horowitz, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee