When rebels make alliances, what informs their choice of allies? Civil wars are rarely simple contests between rebels and incumbent regimes. Rather, rival militant networks provide the context in which these fragmented conflicts unfold. Alliances that emerge within this competitive landscape have the power to alter conflict trajectories and shape their outcomes. Yet patterns of interrebel cooperation are understudied. The existing scholarship on rebel alliances focuses on why rebels cooperate, but little attention is given to the composition of those alliances: with whom rebels cooperate. We explore how power, ideology, and state sponsorship can shape alliance choices in multiparty civil wars. Employing network analysis and an original data set of tactical cooperation among Syrian rebels, we find compelling evidence that ideological homophily is a primary driver of rebel collaboration. Our findings contribute to an emerging literature that reasserts the role of ideology in conflict processes.
AkcinarogluSeden. 2012. “Rebel Interdependencies and Civil War Outcomes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution56 (5): 879–903.
2.
AsalVictorKarl RethemeyerR.. 2008. “The Nature of the Beast: Organizational Structures and the Lethality of Terrorist Attacks.” Journal of Politics70 (2): 437–49.
3.
BaczkoAdamDorronsoroGillesQuesnayArthur. 2018. Civil War in Syria: Mobilization and Competing Social Orders. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BakkeKristin M.2014. “Help Wanted? The Mixed Record of Foreign Fighters in Domestic Insurgencies.” International Security38 (4): 150–87.
5.
BakkeKristin M.CunninghamKathleen GallagherSeymourLee J. M.. 2012. “A Plague of Initials: Fragmentation, Cohesion, and Infighting in Civil Wars.” Perspectives on Politics10 (2): 265–83.
6.
BalcellsLaia. 2017. Rivalry and Revenge: The Politics of Violence during Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BallietDanielTyburJoshua M.WuJunhuiAntonellisChristianVan LangePaul A. M.. 2018. “Political Ideology, Trust, and Cooperation: In-group Favoritism among Republicans and Democrats during a US National Election.” Journal of Conflict Resolution62(4): 797–818.
8.
BapatNavin A.BondKanisha D.. 2012. “Alliances between Militant Groups.” British Journal of Political Science42 (4): 793–824.
9.
BoutylineAndreiWillerRobb. 2017. “The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks.” Political Psychology38 (3): 551–69.
CorbettaRenato. 2013. “Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001.” International Studies Quarterly57 (2): 370–84.
14.
CostalliStefanoRuggeriAndrea. 2015. “Indignation, Ideologies, and Armed Mobilization: Civil War in Italy, 1943-45.” International Security40 (2): 119–57.
15.
CranmerSkyler J.LeifeldPhilipMcClurgScott D.RolfeMeredith. 2017. “Navigating the Range of Statistical Tools for Inferential Network Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 237–51.
16.
CunninghamKathleen Gallagher. 2013. “Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict.” American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 659–72.
17.
CunninghamKathleen GallagherBakkeKristin M.SeymourLee J. M.. 2012. “Shirts Today, Skins Tomorrow: Dual Contests and the Effects of Fragmentation in Self-determination.” Journal of Conflict Resolution56 (1): 67–93.
18.
DellaPostaDanielShiYongrenMacyMichael. 2015. “Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes?” The American Journal of Sociology120 (5): 1473–511.
19.
DorffCassy L. 2015. “Civilian Autonomy and Resilience in the Midst of Armed Conflict.” PhD Dissertation. Duke University.
20.
DorffCassy L.GallopMaxMinhasShahryar. Forthcoming. “Networks of Violence: Predicting Conflict in Nigeria.” Journal of Politics.
21.
DorussenHanGartzkeErik A.WesterwinterOliver. 2016. “Networked International Politics: Complex Interdependence and the Diffusion of Conflict and Peace.” Journal of Peace Research53 (3): 283–91.
22.
DriscollJesse. 2012. “Commitment Problems or Bidding Wars? Rebel Fragmentation as Peace Building.” Journal of Conflict Resolution56 (1): 118–49.
23.
FearonJames D.LaitinDavid D.. 2000. “Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity.” International Organization54 (4): 845–77.
24.
GerberElisabeth R.HenryAdam DouglasLubellMark. 2013. “Political Homophily and Collaboration in Regional Planning Networks.” American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 598–610.
25.
GriffithsRyan D.2016. Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GurrTed R.1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Gutiérrez SanínFranciscoWoodElisabeth Jean. 2014. “Ideology in Civil War: Instrumental Adoption and Beyond.” Journal of Peace Research51 (2): 213–26.
28.
Hafner-BurtonEmilie M.KahlerMilesMontgomeryAlexander H.. 2009. “Network Analysis for International Relations.” International Organization63 (3): 559–92.
JonesSeth G.2017. Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
KimNam Kyu. 2018. “Revolutionary Leaders and Mass Killing.” Journal of Conflict Resolution62 (2): 289–317.
35.
KrausePeter. 2013/2014. “The Structure of Success: How the Internal Distribution of Power Drives Armed Group Behavior and National Movement Effectiveness.” International Security38 (3): 72–116.
36.
KrausePeter. 2017. Rebel Power: Why National Movements Compete, Fight, and Win. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
LaiBrianReiterDan. 2000. “Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992.” Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (2): 203–27.
38.
LichbachMark I.1995. The Rebel’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
39.
ListerCharles R.2015. The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Evolution of an Insurgency. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
MaozZeev. 2012. “Preferential Attachment, Homophily, and the Structure of International Networks, 1816-2003.” Conflict Management and Peace Science29 (3): 341–69.
41.
McPhersonMillerSmith-LovinLynnCookJames M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27:415–44.
42.
MetternichNils W.DorffCassyGallopMaxWeschleSimonWardMichael D.. 2013. “Antigovernment Networks in Civil Conflicts: How Network Structures Affect Conflictual Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science57 (4): 892–911.
43.
MinhasShahryarHoffPeter D.WardMichael D.. 2019. “Inferential Approaches for Network Analysis: AMEN for Latent Factor Models I.” Political Analysis27 (2): 208–22. doi: 10.1017/pan.2018.50
44.
MinhasShahryarHoffPeter D.WardMichael D.. 2016. “A New Approach to Analyzing Coevolving Longitudinal Networks in International Relations.” Journal of Peace Research53 (3): 491–505.
45.
MorrowJames D.1991. “Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances.” American Journal of Political Science35 (4): 904–33.
46.
OppenheimBenjaminSteeleAbbeyVargasJuanWeintraubMichael. 2015. “True Believers, Deserters, and Traitors: Who Leaves Insurgent Groups and Why.” Journal of Conflict Resolution59 (5): 794–823.
PhillipsChristopher. 2016. The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
PopovicMilos. 2018. “Inter-rebel Alliances in the Shadow of Foreign Sponsors.” International Interactions44 (4): 749–76.
50.
RudloffPeterFindleyMichael G.. 2016. “The Downstream Effects of Combatant Fragmentation on Civil War Recurrence.” Journal of Peace Research51 (1): 19–32.
51.
SalehyanIdean. 2010. “The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution54 (3): 493–515.
52.
SalehyanIdeanSirokyDavidWoodReed M.. 2014. “External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities.” International Organization68 (3): 633–61.
53.
SeymourLeeBakkeKristin MCunninghamKathleen Gallagher. 2016. “E Pluribus Unum, Ex Uno Plures: Competition, Violence, and Fragmentation in Ethnopolitical Movements.” Journal of Peace Research53 (1): 3–18.
54.
ShesterininaAnastasia. 2016. “Collective Threat Framing and Mobilization in Civil War.” American Political Science Review110 (3): 411–27.
55.
StanilandPaul. 2014. Networks of Rebellion: Explaining Insurgent Cohesion and Collapse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
56.
StanilandPaul. 2015. “Militias, Ideology, and the State.” Journal of Conflict Resolution59 (5): 770–93.
57.
TammHenning. 2016. “Rebel Leaders, Internal Rivals, and External Resources: How State Sponsors Affect Insurgent Cohesion.” International Studies Quarterly60 (4): 599–610.
58.
UgarrizaJuan E.CraigMatthew J.. 2012. “The Relevance of Ideology to Contemporary Armed Conflicts: A Quantitative Analysis of Former Combatants in Colombia.” Journal of Conflict Resolution57 (3): 445–77.
59.
WalterBarbara F.2017. “The Extremist’s Advantage in Civil Wars.” International Security42 (2): 7–39.
60.
WardMichael D.StovelKatherineSacksAudrey. 2011. “Network Analysis and Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science14:245–64.
61.
WernerSuzanneLemkeDouglas. 1997 “Opposites Do Not Attract: The Impact of Domestic Institutions, Power, and Prior Commitments on Alignment Choices.” International Studies Quarterly41 (3): 529–46.
62.
WoodReed M.KathmanJacob D.. 2015. “Competing for the Crown: Interrebel Competition and Civilian Targeting in Civil War.” Political Research Quarterly68 (1): 167–79.
63.
ZechSteven T.GabbayMichael. 2016. “Social Network Analysis in the Study of Terrorism and Insurgency: From Organization to Politics.” International Studies Review18 (2): 214–43.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
