Cause Of Fatricide

Fratricide: Exploring the Causes and Effects The articles "Fratricidal Rebels: Ideological Extremity and Warring Factionalism in Civil Wars" by Mohammed M. Hafez, and "Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Insurgent Fratricide, Ethnic Defection, and the Rise of Pro-State Paramilitaries" by Paul Staniland, both examine the concept of fratricide within insurgent organizations. While the two authors explore different sides of this concept, the articles ultimately complement one another and lead to a broader understanding of the causes of fratricide and how it drives defection. In this paper, I will first briefly summarize the two arguments and their weaknesses, then identify points where these arguments interact with one another. Hafez centers his argument around the idea that fratricide is most likely to

For example, Hafez's argument dismisses the effects of competition for resources and territory, and he instead chooses to emphasize ideology as the main cause of fratricide. On this topic, Staniland challenges Hafez by asserting that insurgent fratricide is "often a battle over turf and power or a contingent escalation", rather than a product of ideology (Staniland 21). Ideology plays into Hafez's argument in several key ways, including as a cause of fratricide and as a method of classifying actors within factions of an insurgent organization. Another place conflict between arguments occurs is when Staniland ignores the roots of fratricide in favor of focusing on the effects. He "take[s] fratricide as a given" (Staniland 21). This leads to an incomplete analysis, because it is important to examine the causes of a mechanism in order to consider it a valid mechanism on its own. Hafez's attention to the causes of fratricide indicates his opinion of its high importance, and therefore contradicts Staniland in an indirect