Center for a New American Security

Not a direct response to your

Not a direct response to your question / topic, but closely related:

Each year, the Marine Corps University puts on at least one symposium to address issues of importance to U.S. Marines. For the May installment (2 May), we will be examining how terrorist and radical groups end. The panelists will analyze groups that have been integrated into the political system (the IRA & FMLN); groups that have come to an end through eradication campaigns (The Italian Red Brigades & Argentinean Montoneros); groups that have been "managed" at an acceptable threat level (ETA & Indian Sikh movement); and groups whose end-state is yet unknown (the Nepali Maoists, the Taliban, and Al-Qaida).

The keynote speaker is Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State. Dr. Martha Crenshaw, a pioneer in the academic study of terrorism, will provide super-commentary for the event.
The event will be held at the Gray Research Center in Quantico, VA. This event is unclassified. Additional information at www.regonline.com/emeraldexpress_may2012.

Two great pieces from back in

Two great pieces from back in the day by women named Barbara:

Barbara Conry, "The Futility of U.S. Intervention in Regional Conflicts," Cato Policy Analysis No. 209, May 1994.

Barbara F. Walter, "The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement," International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Summer, 1997), pp. 335-364.

You've dredged up some

You've dredged up some awfully problematic papers in that short list, canonical or not.

Kaufman's piece in particular is just terrible - primordialism hiding under a thin veneer of pragmatic constructivism. See Sambanis ( 'Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature' World Politics 52 ( July 2000), 437–83 ) for an overview of the critique and a strong rebuttal.

Stedman's paper, while ground-breaking in its time, is flawed by its singular focus on elite politics and the manifestly false assumption that spoilers are monolithic.

I'd suggest instead (in no particular order):

- John Mueller, 'The Banality of "Ethnic War",' International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1. (Summer, 2000), pp. 42-70.

- Daniel Byman, “Forever enemies? The manipulation of ethnic identities to end ethnic wars”, Security Studies, (2000) 9:3, 149 – 190.

- Nelson Kasfir, ‘Domestic Anarchy, Security Dilemmas, and Violent Predation: Causes of Failure,’ in Robert I. Rotberg, ed., When States Fail: Causes and Consequences (Princeton, NJ: 2004, Princeton University Press)

- Stathis Kalyvs, ‘Ethnic Defection in Civil War’, Comparative Political Studies (August 2008) vol. 41 no. 8, p. 1063.

- James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin,. ‘Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity’, International Organization (2000) vol. 54 no.4, pp. 845-877.

- Rob Aitken, 'Cementing Divisions? An assessment of the impact of international interventions and peace-building policies on ethnic identities and divisions', Policy Studies (2007) vol. 28 no. 3, pp. 247 – 267

- Henry Hale, “Explaining Ethnicity”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 37 No. 4, May 2004, pp. 458-485

Guess we pay good money for

Guess we pay good money for this..

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/conflictterm10.htm

Might as well use it.

take a look at the work of

take a look at the work of Jaroslav Tir. He's done a lot of more quant work on the topic, but acessible.

I'd second the Mueller piece

I'd second the Mueller piece but add that the Luttwak "Give War a Chance" piece is based in nothing but conjecture. I'd add the following:

Cunningham, Gleiditsch, and Saleyhan (2009). "It Takes Two: A Dyadic Analysis of Civil War Duration and Outcome" JCR

- Interesting in that it disaggregates rebel power into the power to inflict pain on the gov't and the power to resist, finds all sorts of interesting things such as the importance of territorial control and the availability of peaceful protest.

Kathman and Wood (2010) "Managing Threat, Cost, and Incentive to Kill: Short- and Long-Term Effects of Intervention on Mass Killings"

- Interesting in that it treats violence against civilians as a tactical tool available to regimes wishing to remain in power, one that they selectively engage in when the conditions are right. Also outlines the potential costs and benefits of different types of interventions.

I'll also second some of the Walter pieces, as she does a particularly good job of outlining the importance of credible commitments in ending civil wars.

Thyne's "Cheap Signals With Costly Consequences" in JCR (promise I'm not a rep for the journal) 2006 outlines the potential for adverse consequences stemming from the signals that outside actors can send to both government actors and rebel actors. I'd say that this article is particularly salient here, as "cheap talk" from outside powers can induce rebels to engage in rebellion despite concrete guarantees that the outside power might intervene on their behalf. Government actors, enjoying a particular informational advantage in regards to what leaders of other states will or will not actually do in response to rebellion, tend to be more apt at interpreting the concrete details underlying signals sent by foreign powers.

I could go on, but it risks diluting the importance of the pieces already presented here, so I'll stop.

Abu M I am at this stage

Abu M

I am at this stage rather late to the party, but am surprised this did not pop up yet:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9086.html

Best
ADTS