Laitin And Fearon: A Comparative Analysis

Researchers David Laitin and James Fearon conveyed over the terms: insurgency, ethnicity, civil war and ethnic conflicts in their personal fashion. Insurgency is a technology of military conflict characterized by an insufficient, faintly armed bands practicing guerilla welfare within rural area which reckons the likeliness of civil wars. Ethnicity is in essence ofa social construction used to explain the ethnic violence. Civil wars are prevalent due to the accumulation of the umpteen number of conflicts since the Cold War. They came to the illation that neither ethnic nor religious diversity itself cannot be the sole justification to make a country prone to war, neither can ethnic or political grievances be considered a solid vindication. Ethnic conflict is most nearly just the chaotic collision between a similar group of people which conclusively stems from rough terrain, local knowledge, and large populations. It was presumed that it was the end of the Cold War that evoked the unleashing of civil conflicts though Laitin and Fearon refuted these presumption. Additionally, it was in actuality the conditions that favored insurgency that steered
Kaufman deems that opposing side should be separate within their own enclaves, with no access to contact one another and have the ability to defend themselves against any attacks thus having fewer reasoning to fight. Kaufman defines civil war as a contest between factions within a preexisting community to determine how it should be governed also with the underlining fear of having to coexist with those who not particularly favored. The possible solution to civil war is to restructure the definition of ethnic identities in border terms; i.e.: "British, European, and English versus one another, while the impossible solution would be that ethnic identity is too ancient and change cannot be