Civil War: **Civil War: Strategic Dynamics and Battlefield Innovations**

By Fouad Sabry

What is Civil War

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state .The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.The term is a calque of Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Civil War

Chapter 2: Ethnic Conflict

Chapter 3: Peacekeeping

Chapter 4: Failed State

Chapter 5: Warlord

Chapter 6: Rebellion

Chapter 7: Proxy War

Chapter 8: Insurgency

Chapter 9: First Congo War

Chapter 10: International Security

(II) Answering the public top questions about civil war.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Civil War.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: May 26, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Civil war

A civil war is a conflict among established factions within a single state (or country). One side's objective may be to seize power in the nation or a specific area, secure regional independence, or alter governmental practices. The phrase is a translation of the Latin phrase bellum civile, which was used to describe the multiple civil wars that raged within the Roman Republic in the first century BC.

The majority of contemporary civil wars involve outside forces. About two thirds of the 138 intrastate conflicts between the end of World War II and 2000 saw international action, according to Patrick M. Regan in his book Civil Wars and Foreign Powers (2000), with the United States intervening in 35 of these conflicts.

A civil war is a violent battle within a country conducted by organized organizations with the objective of taking power at the center or in a region, or to modify governmental policy, according to James Fearon, a civil war expert at Stanford University.

The Geneva Conventions establish the obligations of participants in armed conflict not of an international character, but they do not define the phrase civil war expressly. This includes civil conflicts, however the text of the Conventions doesn't give a clear definition of what a civil war is.

The Geneva Conventions are so general, so vague, that many of the delegations feared that it might be taken to cover any act committed by force of arms, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has attempted to provide some clarification in its commentaries on the Conventions. As a result, the comments offer various conditions that would determine whether or not the Geneva Convention would be applied; the commentary, however, emphasizes that they should not be regarded as strict requirements. The following conditions are given by the ICRC in its commentary::

That the Party in uprising against the de jure Government has a well-organized armed force, a responsible authority, operates within a specific territory, and has the means to uphold and guarantee upholding the Convention.

that in order to combat insurgents that are organized as military and who control a portion of the national territory, the legitimate government must use regular military forces.

(a) That the rebels are considered belligerents by the de facto government; or

(a) That it has asserted its right to engage in hostilities; or

(c) That it has granted recognition to the rebels as belligerents for the exclusive purpose of the current Convention; or

(d) The fact that the conflict has been listed on the United Nations' agenda by the Security Council or the General Assembly as posing a threat to world peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of attack.

(a) The fact that the insurgents have a group that claims to have state-like features.

(b) That a certain area of the national territory is where the insurgent civil authority has de facto control over the populace.

(c) That the armed forces follow organizational authority's orders and are ready to adhere to the basic laws of war.

(d) That the insurgent civil authority consents to abide by the Convention's rules.

A 2017 review study on civil war research claims that, there are three prominent explanations for civil war: greed-based explanations which center on individuals’ desire to maximize their profits, explanations based on grievances that emphasize how conflict arises in reaction to socioeconomic or political inequality, and explanations based on opportunities that emphasize elements that make it simpler to engage in violent mobilization.

Researchers looking into the origins of civil war are drawn to two competing theories: greed and grievance. To put it simply: do disputes start because people or organizations have economic reasons to do so, or are conflicts started because of differences in people's ethnicity, religion, or other social affiliations? Academic research supports the assumption that, in predicting the likelihood of civil war, economic and structural factors matter more than those related to identity.

The majority of grievance proxy variables, such as economic equality, political rights, ethnic polarization, and religious fractionalization, were statistically insignificant. This is consistent with the view that civil wars start as a result of identity conflicts rather than economic ones. Civil war was only made more likely by ethnic domination, which occurs when the largest ethnic group makes up the majority of the population. A civil war is approximately twice as likely to occur in a nation where one ethnic group dominates others. As long as the nation avoided ethnic domination, the combined consequences of ethnic and religious fractionalization—that is, the larger likelihood that any two randomly picked people will be from separate ethnic or religious groups—were likewise considerable and good. According to the study, this means that minority groups are more likely to revolt if they feel oppressed, but that rebellions are more likely to happen when populations are more homogeneous because this makes rebels more cohesive. Thus, in many situations, these two aspects might be considered as compensating for one another.

One of the main opponents of Paul Collier's greed vs. grievance thesis is David Keen, a professor at the London School of Economics' Development Studies Institute. He contends that, despite his inability to define it, a dispute cannot be attributed to only one cause. He thinks that because disputes are so much more complicated, they shouldn't be studied using crude techniques. He disagrees with Collier's quantitative research techniques and thinks more attention should be paid to personal information and the perspectives of the persons involved in conflict.

Beyond Keen, a number of additional writers have published books that either refute the greed vs. grievance argument using actual evidence or ignore its conclusion. Many of the proponents of the greed theory can be refuted by empirical data, according to authors like Cristina Bodea and Ibrahim Elbadawi, who co-authored the entry Riots, coups, and civil war: Revisiting the greed and grievance debate. They contend that this renders the greed theory irrelevant. They look at a wide range of variables and come to the conclusion that there are too many variables at play with conflict, which cannot be restricted to only greed or resentment.

In a persuasive argument, Anthony Vinci claims that fungible idea of power and the primary drive of survival provide superior explanations of armed group motivation and, more broadly, the conduct of internal conflicts..

According to James Fearon and David Laitin, racial and religious diversity does not increase the likelihood of civil war.

The contending powers of a state split apart by civil war frequently lack the capacity or faith to believe in the other side's willingness to terminate the war.

Politics professor Barbara F.

According to Walter, the majority of current civil wars are essentially remakes of older ones that frequently break out when leaders are not held accountable to the people, when there is little public involvement in politics, and when there is a lack of information transparency between executives and the general people.

When these problems are properly reversible, Walter claims, They function as political and legal checks on executive power, forcing the existing administration to provide better services to the people.

Additionally, These political and legal restrictions provide a uniform means of influencing the government and raise the commitment value of signed peace treaties.

It is the strength of a nation’s institutionalization and good governance—not the presence of democracy nor the poverty level—that is the number one indicator of the chance of a repeat civil war, based on Walter.

The likelihood of violence was raised by both the existence of mountainous terrain and the high levels of population dispersion. Both of these features work in favor of the rebels because it is more difficult to manage a population that is distributed outward toward the borders than one that is concentrated in a single area and because mountains provide refuge for the rebels.

With increasing population, the likelihood of civil war is influenced by