Article Summary: Violence During The Civil War

Stanton’s article challenges the general view of militia/civilian relationships, she argues that governments have the ability and quite often control over militia behavior in civil wars. A number of governments make tactical decisions about whether to use violence against civilians, this inspirers both conventional military forces and militia forces to target civilians or restraining regular military forces and militia forces from attacking civilians. Stanton believes that if a militia is recruited from a community then they are less likely to attack the civilian community that they came from. Stantion found that “Militia forces rarely use higher levels of civilian targeting than their government counter parts. The evidence does not support the Stanton
They outline that civilian defense forces as a permanent and defensive form of pro-government militia that officials will often use to harness civilians during a counterinsurgency campaign. The authors argue that a civilian defense forces will reduce the problem of insurgent identification. This will lead to a reduction in state violence that targets civilians. Nevertheless, they also claim that these actors can and will undermine civilian support for insurgents, which can lead to rise in rebel violence targeting civilians and overall escalation of violence. the evidence in this article shows that a permanent civilian defense forces decreases the state’s use of indiscriminate violence, but causes a rise in insurgent violence. They also demonstrated that by making civilians the epicenter of the unconventional war effort, civilian defense forces increase the overall loss of life in civil conflicts, at least in the short run. “This underscores the significance of civilian support and control in determining the type and level of violence in civil wars” (Clayton