On Insurgencies and Stability

So I found this interesting paper recently. It analyses intrastate conflict (armed insurgencies against the current government) in the post-1945 era.

There are several interesting observations made by the paper. I quoted the paper on some points and added my own comments.

Some of these observations are very counter-intuitive. The authors of the paper offer their own explanations for each effect, but I'd love to hear some other perspectives on this. I especially want to hear the national-socialist perspective on this (especially observations 1 and 2), because where else if not the AtWar off-topic forum am I going to find national socialists?


1. "There is no consistent effect [on insurgencies] as we move from low to high levels of ethnic fractionalisation."

Intuitively, it seems obvious that ethnically diverse states would have more conflict, because many insurgencies are fuelled by ethnic conflicts. But analysis excluding colonial empires reveals that the correlation between ethnic diversity and insurgencies are statistically insignificant.

2. "The same goes for the religious diversity measures, which actually have the opposite sign expected by the hypothesis."

Again in defiance of intuition, the correlation between religious diversity and insurgencies is also statistically insignificant, despite all the religiously-fuelled conflicts happening worldwide.

3. "The average annual rates of onset [of insurgencies] for autocracies and democracies are 1.3% and .8%, respectively, as compared to a much greater 3.7% for anocracies."

Anocracies are governments that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic, but rather occupy a sort of in-between position in terms of openness. Anocracies have much more difficulty suppressing insurgencies than either democracies and autocracies.

4. "When we add a variable measuring the percentage of Muslims in each country to our main specification, it gains a positive and statistically significant coefficient [...] including a regional dummy sharply lowers the estimated effect of percentage Muslim and its statistical significance."

In other (and hopefully simpler) words, having more Muslims in that particular country does not statistically significantly increase the chances of insurrection, but being in a region that has lots of Muslims (like the Middle East) does significantly increase the chances of insurrection.


Discuss.

Wrong place to discuss with facts logically mate.

كتب بواسطة Meester, 10.12.2015 at 04:50

Wrong place to discuss with facts logically mate.

I don't want to really open a debate or anything. In the AtWar forums? It's just asking for chaos.

I just want to see why people think these effects exist (or not exist).

كتب بواسطة International, 10.12.2015 at 04:54

كتب بواسطة Meester, 10.12.2015 at 04:50

Wrong place to discuss with facts logically mate.

I don't want to really open a debate or anything. In the AtWar forums? It's just asking for chaos.

I just want to see why people think these effects exist (or not exist).

Brb, reading the paper.

About 'islamic insurgencies' & 'islamic terrorism' & 'islamic extremism':

90% of them are funded by United States of America and are used as a weapon to command and control countries around the globe to suit American interest. By creating isurgencies and funding islamic terrorists, America can invade with their 'allies' and control their armies, thus boosting weapon trade and expanding its military-industrial complex while in the same time they destroy their opponents and allies of their enemies, like USSR/Russia.

Russia is the ultimate goal of the United States, that's confirmed 30 years ago, America won't stop invading and destabilizing planet earth until Russia is teared on 100 pieces and its resources transfered to America. USSR had large muslim population (most notably Soviet Middle Asia) and America created various terrorist groups who declare themselves muslims in order to inflitrate, recruit and fight in USSR. In the same time, those terrorists would also create chaos in Middle East which is 95% islamic and rich with oil, so America can send troops in pretext, capture oil fields and guard them, thus creating advantage with that strategic resource.

Read Reagan's Administration for more info about US creation and funding of muslim terrorists.





Without American money, logistics and support, those groups would not be so strong and would be defeated by the government forces in countries they are created after few weeks. The rest 10% are (you are talking about) 'real opposition' which create insurgency and fight for their beliefs or ideology, they are not funded by foreign powers.. usually. But their numbers and effect is so insignificant that it's not worth talking about.. atleast not until terrorism is defeated.

كتب بواسطة Skanderbeg, 10.12.2015 at 14:37

snip

What oil fields has America taken in Iraq in the past decade?