Violence Against the State Versus Violence Against Civilians: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Insurgent Targeting Strategies and Conflict Outcomes

Full report

On this page

Introduction

The strategic logic of target selection in asymmetric warfare fundamentally dictates the political, military, and diplomatic trajectory of violent insurgencies. When non-state actors mobilize against an incumbent regime, they are immediately confronted with a tactical, moral, and strategic dilemma: whether to direct their violence exclusively against the apparatus of the state—its armed forces, constabulary, rulers, administrative institutions, and physical infrastructure—or to expand their targeting horizon to encompass civilian populations and communal rivals. This distinction is not merely a matter of ethical restraint; it operates as a profound strategic variable that shapes the political efficacy, duration, and ultimate resolution of the conflict. Theoretical consensus within conflict studies and historical sociology indicates that armed movements exercising restraint and deploying selective violence against state agents generally achieve higher rates of political success, secure critical foreign sympathy, and successfully navigate negotiated settlements1. Conversely, organizations that resort to indiscriminate violence against civilians routinely fail to realize their overarching policy objectives, even as their tactics inadvertently prolong the duration of the conflict and empower hardline factions within the incumbent regime3. This report presents an exhaustive comparative historical analysis of movements that attempted to navigate the distinction between state-directed violence and civilian victimization. To avoid the analytical distortions associated with hyper-ideological conflicts of the twentieth century, this study bypasses overworked examples—such as Soviet partisans, Maoist insurgencies, or the Khmer Rouge—and instead focuses on a diverse array of historically nuanced cases. By examining nineteenth-century European nationalism, Latin American peasant rebellions, African anti-colonial campaigns, Middle Eastern uprisings, and regional civil wars, this study evaluates the cascading consequences of distinct targeting strategies. The analysis systematically measures the historical effects of targeting soldiers, police, rulers, senior officials, administrative institutions, collaborators, infrastructure, and civilian populations on seven critical metrics: public support, state retaliation, insurgent recruitment, foreign sympathy, intelligence cooperation, conflict duration, and political settlement.

Theoretical Foundations: The Strategic Logic of Target Selection

To comprehend the historical consequences of insurgent targeting, it is necessary to delineate the theoretical mechanisms that govern violence in civil wars, rebellions, and anti-colonial struggles. The academic literature identifies a sharp divergence in outcomes based on whether an armed group relies on selective violence directed at the state or indiscriminate violence directed at the populace.

Selective Violence, Restraint, and the Intelligence Economy

Selective violence is highly personalized and requires robust, granular intelligence, which must be voluntarily supplied by a sympathetic or compliant civilian population6. When insurgencies target soldiers, police, and senior officials, they aim to systematically dismantle the state's capacity to project power, enforce laws, and maintain a monopoly on violence. By restricting violence to combatants and recognized agents of the state, insurgents signal limited political objectives to the broader public, thereby mitigating civilian alienation8. Furthermore, restraint toward civilians acts as a costly signal to domestic and international audiences, demonstrating that the armed group is a legitimate political actor capable of responsible governance and adherence to emergent international humanitarian norms1. This restraint is fundamentally tied to the "identification problem" in irregular warfare; because combatants hide among the population, the ability to selectively target state informants or agents relies entirely on the civilian populace's willingness to denounce state actors to the insurgents6. When an armed group uses violence selectively, it establishes a reciprocal relationship with the populace, exchanging physical protection for critical intelligence7.

Indiscriminate Violence, Alienation, and Strategic Failure

When armed groups transition from targeting the state to targeting civilians, the strategic outcomes deteriorate rapidly. Research demonstrates that organizations prioritizing deliberate attacks on noncombatants achieve their policy objectives at staggeringly low rates, frequently failing to coerce governments into making political or territorial concessions2. Civilian targeting signals maximalist, sectarian, or exterminationist intentions, which empowers hardliners within the incumbent regime and unites the target population against the insurgents out of a basic survival instinct2. Moreover, while conflicts involving widespread violence against civilians tend to last significantly longer due to the collapse of inter-communal trust and the entrenchment of security dilemmas, they are markedly less likely to conclude with a negotiated peace settlement or an outright insurgent victory3. Insurgencies that emerge in resource-rich environments often resort to indiscriminate violence because they rely on material incentives rather than social endowments, resulting in an opportunistic, undisciplined fighting force that alienates the very population required for long-term political success13.

Targeting the Vanguard of the State: Soldiers and Armed Forces

The most direct and militarily conventional method of challenging an incumbent regime is the systematic targeting of its armed forces. By attacking military garrisons, convoys, and patrols, insurgents seek to physically expel the state from contested territory, creating a security vacuum that the rebel organization can subsequently fill.

Strategic Restraint and Anti-Colonial Success: Guinea-Bissau (1963–1974)

In Portuguese Guinea, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), led by the intellectual and agronomist Amílcar Cabral, waged a highly organized anti-colonial war that drew strict distinctions between Portuguese armed forces and the civilian population14. Cabral recognized that the insurgency could only survive if it secured the absolute support of the rural peasantry, which required protecting them from the brutalities of both the colonial state and undisciplined rebel commanders15. Early in the conflict, certain factions of the PAIGC engaged in warlordism, resulting in abusive violence against local populations and the execution of traditional chiefs17. Recognizing that indiscriminate violence would alienate the masses and invite devastating Portuguese retaliation, Cabral convened the historic Congress of Cassaca in 196417. The Congress served as a mechanism to eliminate warlordism, severely punish commanders who had committed excesses against civilians, and restructure the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARP) to focus exclusively on kinetic engagements against Portuguese military outposts17. The consequences of this recalibration were profound and multi-dimensional. By strictly targeting the Portuguese military and establishing civil administration, schools, and clinics in the newly "liberated zones," the PAIGC secured near-total intelligence cooperation and logistical support from the peasantry14. The PAIGC's demonstrated restraint, political sophistication, and capacity for civil governance won immense foreign sympathy, resulting in material military backing from the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, as well as diplomatic recognition from 57 sovereign states and the United Nations General Assembly following their unilateral declaration of independence in 197314. The conflict ended in a total strategic victory for the PAIGC, aided by the collapse of the Portuguese military resolve that precipitated the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Lisbon14.

Retaliation and the Catalyst of State Violence: The Great Syrian Revolt (1925–1927)

The dynamics of targeting armed forces also reveal how the state's response to such targeting can fundamentally alter the conflict's trajectory. The Great Syrian Revolt of 1925 was a massive popular uprising against the French Mandate, led by figures like Sultan Pasha al-Atrash and Fawzi al-Qawuqji19. The insurgents, representing a diverse coalition of Druze fighters, urban nationalists, and seasoned Ottoman army veterans, strictly targeted French military columns, supply lines, and colonial administrative outposts20. The Syrian rebels utilized highly mobile guerrilla tactics, constantly outmaneuvering traditional French military columns in the rugged terrain of the Jabal Druze and the countryside surrounding Damascus21. Unable to effectively combat the elusive rebel bands through conventional military engagements, the French military command resorted to indiscriminate, punitive violence against the civilian population. In October 1925, following rebel incursions into the cities of Hama and Damascus, the French utilized heavy artillery and aerial bombardment to shell the ancient, densely populated center of Damascus19. The historical consequences of this indiscriminate state retaliation were disastrous for the mandatory power. Rather than pacifying the population, the slaughter of civilians instantly transformed a localized, geographically bounded Druze rebellion into a nationwide, cross-sectarian anti-colonial war20. The French policy of collective punishment drove thousands of previously unaligned or moderate civilians into the arms of the insurgency, providing the rebels with an unprecedented surge in manpower, intelligence, and logistical support20. Furthermore, the destruction of civilian centers generated massive foreign sympathy for the Syrian cause, sparking international outrage at the League of Nations and permanently damaging the moral legitimacy of the French mission civilisatrice in the Levant22. Though the French eventually suppressed the revolt by deploying overwhelming military reinforcements, the indiscriminate violence solidified a unified Arab nationalist consciousness that rendered long-term French occupation untenable and paved the way for eventual Syrian independence20.

Paralyzing the State: Targeting Police and Intelligence Networks

While targeting the military degrades the state's brute force capabilities, targeting the constabulary and intelligence apparatus degrades the state's sensory organs. Police forces and intelligence operatives represent the daily manifestation of state authority in local communities; their neutralization blinds the regime and allows insurgent shadow governments to operate with impunity.

The Irish War of Independence (1919–1921)

The Irish War of Independence provides a quintessential historical model of an insurgency successfully isolating and neutralizing the state's domestic security apparatus while meticulously managing its relationship with the civilian population. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) directed its campaign of violence and intimidation specifically against the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), the British Army, and British intelligence networks24. The IRA's campaign against the RIC began not with mass violence, but with a highly coordinated policy of social ostracism sanctioned by the shadow parliament, Dáil Éireann, in April 191924. When ostracism escalated to armed attacks on isolated rural police barracks, the RIC was forced to consolidate its forces in larger towns and cities, effectively abandoning vast swaths of the rural countryside to the administrative and judicial control of the Irish Republic24. This strategy severely damaged British intelligence-gathering capabilities, as the RIC historically served as the primary node of local knowledge for the British administration. When the British government attempted to rebuild its intelligence capabilities in Dublin by deploying a network of undercover agents known as the "Cairo Gang," the IRA intelligence department, led by Michael Collins, systematically infiltrated the network25. On the morning of November 21, 1920—a day that became known as "Bloody Sunday"—the IRA executed over a dozen members of the Cairo Gang in synchronized assassinations across the capital25. This highly targeted operation temporarily crippled British intelligence efforts and demonstrated the IRA's lethal reach into the heart of the state apparatus25. Crucially, the IRA maintained high levels of public support by coupling selective violence against the state with mass civilian participation in non-violent resistance, such as the Limerick Soviet and widespread railway strikes that paralyzed British troop movements24. Violence against non-combatants was exceedingly rare and strictly limited to selective assassinations of civilian informants and loyalist collaborators. In regions like County Cork, suspected informers were often secretly executed and "disappeared" to prevent public backlash, sectarian escalation, or the alienation of the broader civilian base26. The consequence of this highly disciplined targeting of the state security apparatus was immense: it shattered the morale of the RIC, caused recruitment to plummet, forced the British government to the negotiating table, and culminated in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, achieving the establishment of the Irish Free State24.

Decapitation Strategies: Rulers, Senior Officials, and the Politics of Assassination

The assassination of the highest echelons of the state—rulers, government ministers, and senior bureaucrats—is a strategy designed to decapitate the regime, demonstrate the vulnerability of autocratic power, and spark popular uprisings. This tactic, historically termed "propaganda by the deed," attempts to utilize hyper-selective violence to achieve maximum political shock while theoretically avoiding collateral civilian casualties, thereby maintaining a moral high ground.

Narodnaya Volya and the SR Combat Organization (Russia, 1881–1905)

In late nineteenth-century Imperial Russia, underground revolutionary organizations sought to dismantle the Tsarist autocracy through the targeted assassination of senior state figures. The pioneering populist group Narodnaya Volya (The People's Will) achieved global notoriety by successfully assassinating Tsar Alexander II in 188130. The group justified the assassination by articulating a moral argument: targeting individual state oppressors was a fundamentally more humane form of revolution than inciting a mass civil war, as it explicitly spared innocent citizens from the horrors of indiscriminate battlefield violence31. Following the subsequent destruction of Narodnaya Volya by the Tsarist secret police (the Okhrana), the Socialist Revolutionary (SR) Party established the Combat Organization in 1901 to institutionalize and continue the campaign of political assassinations33. The SR Combat Organization operated with near-total autonomy from the broader party and targeted the highest levels of the Russian state, assassinating Interior Ministers Dmitry Sipyagin (1902) and Vyacheslav von Plehve (1904), as well as Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (1905)33. The SR terrorists operated under a rigid, almost religious moral framework that demanded absolute selectivity and self-sacrifice. This ethos was epitomized by Ivan Kaliayev, the assassin of Grand Duke Sergei, who voluntarily aborted his first bombing attempt upon realizing that the Grand Duke's wife and children were riding in the carriage alongside his target36. Kaliayev’s decision to spare the children, his successful execution of the assassination two days later, and his subsequent refusal of a pardon—accepting his own execution as a necessary moral expiation for the act of murder—elevated the prestige of the Combat Organization36. This extreme operational restraint cast the assassins not as bloodthirsty terrorists, but as selfless martyrs in the eyes of the progressive Russian public, generating profound domestic sympathy for the revolutionary cause34. The historical consequences of targeting the Tsarist elite were highly complex and ultimately paradoxical. Tactically, the assassinations completely failed to bring about the immediate collapse of the state. Instead, they triggered severe state retaliation, the imposition of martial law, and unintended, catastrophic civilian suffering in the form of widespread anti-Jewish pogroms that erupted following the death of Alexander II, as reactionary elements blamed minorities for the regime's instability40. Furthermore, the insular and conspiratorial nature of the Combat Organization made it highly vulnerable to police infiltration, most notably by the infamous agent provocateur Evno Azef, whose eventual exposure shattered the morale of the organization and led to its dissolution33. However, strategically, the relentless targeting of high officials successfully eroded the aura of Tsarist invincibility, galvanized broader revolutionary sentiment among the peasantry and working class, and directly contributed to the profound political destabilization that culminated in the 1905 Russian Revolution30.

Young Italy, Transnational Sympathy, and Nineteenth-Century Nationalism

In the context of nineteenth-century European nationalism, Giuseppe Mazzini’s Giovine Italia (Young Italy) similarly utilized targeted political violence, espionage, and insurrection to expel Austrian imperial rule from the Italian peninsula44. Mazzini, a deeply philosophical revolutionary, viewed national liberation as a sacred moral duty and justified armed insurrection and political assassination specifically against despotic foreign rulers and their administrative agents45. Concurrently, he vehemently opposed the indiscriminate violence and mass terror that had characterized the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, arguing that the ends of national liberation could not justify the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians45. The targeting of Austrian administrative and military outposts provoked harsh, localized crackdowns, driving Mazzini into perpetual exile and resulting in the arrest and execution of many of his loyal followers44. Yet, the intense focus on targeting the apparatus of foreign occupation, rather than engaging in internecine civilian warfare, won Mazzini’s movement substantial foreign sympathy, particularly among British radicals, artisans, and intellectuals44. When it was revealed in 1844 that the British government was secretly opening Mazzini's mail and passing intelligence to Austrian authorities—leading to the execution of Italian patriots—it triggered a massive political scandal in London, further solidifying international sympathy for the Italian cause44. This moral framing of anti-state violence laid the critical ideological and diplomatic groundwork for Giuseppe Garibaldi's later Expedition of the Thousand, which successfully targeted Bourbon troops and administrative posts to collapse the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1860, paving the way for Italian unification49.

Dismantling the Architecture of Control: Administrative Institutions and Infrastructure

Beyond human targets, insurgencies frequently direct violence against the physical and bureaucratic manifestations of state authority. Destroying infrastructure (railways, pipelines, telecommunications) and administrative institutions (tax offices, land registries, judicial courts) serves to physically and legally detach a territory from the central government's control.

The Federal War in Venezuela (1859–1863)

The Venezuelan Federal War offers a striking historical example of an insurgency targeting the administrative and legal institutions of the state. Led by the liberal caudillo Ezequiel Zamora, the massive peasant rebellion was driven by deep agrarian grievances against the conservative landowning elite and the centralized state apparatus51. Recognizing that the power of the elite was codified in legal documents, the rebels systematically targeted the state's bureaucratic infrastructure, specifically focusing on the targeted destruction of provincial land registries, municipal archives, and the physical estates of prominent landowners51. The destruction of land registries yielded immense and immediate tactical benefits for the insurgency: it effectively erased the legal architecture of elite land ownership, thereby emancipating the peasantry from generations of debt and peonage53. This administrative sabotage drove massive, enthusiastic recruitment into Zamora's ranks, swelling the rebel armies. The state's administrative capacity in the rural provinces entirely collapsed, forcing the central government to the negotiating table and resulting in the adoption of a federalist constitution that theoretically decentralized power51. However, the long-term historical consequences of targeting administrative infrastructure proved deeply detrimental to post-conflict state-building. Modern comparative studies of post-conflict recovery consistently demonstrate that the destruction of land registries and property records fundamentally paralyses post-war economic stabilization and reconstruction55. In Venezuela, the deliberate obliteration of legal records generated decades of localized, violent land disputes, permanently discouraged agricultural investment, and perpetuated the fractured, localized rule of regional warlords (caudillos) long after the formal hostilities of the Federal War had concluded51.

Modern Equivalents: Infrastructure Disruption in Regional Conflicts

In modern regional civil wars, the targeting of physical infrastructure mirrors the historical targeting of administrative records. In the Sahel region of Africa, jihadist insurgencies such as JNIM (Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin) and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province) have systematically targeted critical resource and communications infrastructure, including the imposition of economic blockades on major state capitals like Bamako59. While these groups also utilize violence against civilians, their highly coordinated infrastructural attacks serve to stretch African states' military capacities, deprive the central government of revenue streams, and create isolated pockets of territory where the state can no longer project authority59. Similar to the Venezuelan case, while infrastructure targeting accelerates state collapse, it guarantees that any post-conflict entity will inherit a ruined economic landscape.

The Descent into Civilian Victimization: Alienation and Intractability

When armed movements abandon strategic restraint and broaden their targeting to include civilian populations, the fundamental character and trajectory of the war alter drastically. Violence against civilians in civil war is rarely irrational; as theorized by scholars of conflict dynamics, it is frequently employed as a calculated, coercive tool to exert control over contested territory, enforce ethnic or religious homogenization, or collectively punish populations perceived as sympathetic to the enemy1. However, the historical record indicates that this strategy overwhelmingly backfires, destroying the movement's political legitimacy, foreclosing the possibility of a negotiated settlement, and ensuring the conflict becomes a protracted stalemate.

The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO)

Founded in 1893 to secure autonomy for the regions of Macedonia and Adrianople from the Ottoman Empire, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) initially directed its violence strictly against Ottoman military forces, tax collectors, and state officials63. However, following the disastrous failure of the 1903 Ilinden Uprising and the subsequent brutal Ottoman military reprisals—which included the destruction of over 100 villages—IMRO's internal cohesion shattered, and its targeting strategy devolved dramatically63. Operating in a highly mixed demographic environment, fractured IMRO bands, alongside rival Greek and Serbian guerrilla factions, began utilizing systematic, indiscriminate terror against the civilian population63. The violence was weaponized to force Slavic-speaking peasants to formally declare affiliation with either the Bulgarian Exarchate or the Greek Patriarchate64. Civilians were assassinated, kidnapped for ransom, and blackmailed based entirely on their religious or national declarations, resulting in a fratricidal war where even traditional family structures were violently divided over enforced identities64. The shift to civilian targeting completely undermined IMRO's original, progressive goal of an autonomous, multi-ethnic Macedonian state63. Instead of uniting the populace against the Ottoman imperial state, IMRO's violence irrevocably fractured the civilian population, destroyed any semblance of local intelligence cooperation, and invited devastating military interventions from neighboring states (Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria)64. By the 1920s, having alienated its own potential constituency, IMRO had degenerated from a broad-based national liberation movement into a transnational terrorist network primarily known for border raids, extortion, and high-profile assassinations (including the King of Yugoslavia), ultimately failing entirely to secure an independent Macedonian state63.

The Cristero War in Mexico (1926–1929)

The Cristero War erupted as a massive, popular Catholic uprising against the aggressive secularization, anti-clerical laws, and property seizures enforced by Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles67. Initially, the Cristeros focused their violence strictly against the federal army, police units, and government installations, operating as a highly effective rural guerrilla force that enjoyed deep, widespread popular support across central and western Mexico67. However, radical elements within the Cristero movement soon expanded their targeting to include unarmed civilians perceived as agents, beneficiaries, or ideological sympathizers of the secular state. Militant priests and rogue commanders ordered brutal, indiscriminate ambushes on civilian infrastructure, most notoriously an April 1927 attack on a passenger train orchestrated by Father Vega, which resulted in dozens of civilian passengers being shot or burned alive69. In the aftermath of the formal 1929 peace settlement (the Arreglos negotiated between the Church and the State), hardline Cristero remnants rejected the truce and launched a second, lower-intensity rebellion in the 1930s. This phase heavily targeted rural socialist public school teachers, viewing them as the primary civilian manifestations of the state's anti-religious agenda. Teachers were subjected to grotesque vigilante violence, including hanging, rape, and systematic mutilation—most notably the severing of ears by Catholic zealots69. The expansion of violence to civilian targets—particularly the horrific train massacres and the localized mutilation of school teachers—severely damaged the moral high ground of the Cristero movement. While the initial resistance generated immense foreign sympathy, notably from the Knights of Columbus in the United States who lobbied the American government on their behalf, the atrocities against civilians alienated moderate Mexican Catholics and allowed the revolutionary government in Mexico City to successfully brand the rebels as regressive, violent fanatics69. The Catholic Church hierarchy itself ultimately condemned the violence and withdrew structural support for the fighters, recognizing that civilian targeting was politically catastrophic and jeopardized the Church's long-term survival in Mexico67. Consequently, the rebellion was isolated, deprived of funding and legitimacy, and the second wave of the 1930s was easily crushed by state security forces.

Macro-Level Outcomes: Duration, Settlement, and the Shadow of International Norms

The historical case studies are strongly corroborated by quantitative political science and macro-level analyses of civil war outcomes. The data unequivocally demonstrates that the choice between state-directed violence and civilian victimization directly impacts conflict duration and the probability of a negotiated settlement.

The Prolongation of Conflict and the Failure of Terrorism

Extensive empirical studies on rebel effectiveness demonstrate that terrorism—defined as the deliberate, systematic use of indiscriminate violence against public civilian targets to influence a wider audience—is a strategically bankrupt tactic for achieving political concessions2. While civilian targeting may help a marginalized rebel organization survive institutionally by maintaining visibility and scuttling premature peace efforts, it systematically undermines their chances of achieving either military victories or favorable negotiated settlements3. Civil wars involving groups that heavily target civilians last significantly longer than those without such violence, reducing the likelihood of swift war termination by nearly sixty percent3. This occurs because civilian targeting inherently signals maximalist objectives to the incumbent regime, destroying any foundational trust required for negotiations. When a state perceives an insurgency as an existential threat to its populace rather than a political movement with limited, negotiable demands, it is far less likely to make policy concessions and far more likely to commit to total military victory, regardless of the cost2.

Restraint and the Facilitation of Peace Settlements

Conversely, restraint is often utilized as a deliberate, calculated strategy by insurgencies to signal moderation, political maturity, and readiness for governance. Armed groups that avoid direct attacks on civilian populations and demonstrate respect for international humanitarian norms are vastly more successful in winning domestic hearts and minds and securing international diplomatic support1. Groups that rely on international or domestic political support to sustain their cause are highly susceptible to legal and moral suasion; the specter of war crimes investigations or the loss of foreign funding acts as a powerful disincentive to attacking civilians71. Furthermore, during periods of heightened competition between rival non-state actors, engaging in civilian victimization is often counterproductive. While ideological "outbidding" sometimes occurs, intense violent competition for resources often incentivizes groups to demonstrate restraint toward civilians, as alienating the population would sever critical supply lines and intelligence networks9. By demonstrating restraint, rebel groups reassure government opponents of their trustworthiness as negotiating partners, greatly increasing the probability of a durable, formalized peace settlement9.

Conclusion

The historical evidence across anti-colonial struggles, nineteenth-century nationalist uprisings, and complex regional civil wars yields a definitive conclusion regarding the utility of political violence: target selection is the primary determinant of strategic success. Movements that exhibit strict organizational discipline and confine their violence to the apparatus of the state—its armed forces, police, intelligence networks, administrative hubs, and senior officials—are vastly more likely to achieve their overarching political objectives. As demonstrated by the IRA in Ireland and the PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau, the systematic dismantling of the state's coercive mechanisms creates a physical and administrative vacuum that insurgent forces can successfully fill. By sparing the civilian population, these movements construct a shadow legitimacy, ensuring a steady, reliable flow of intelligence, recruits, and international diplomatic recognition. Even when highly targeted attacks against the state provoke massive retaliation—as seen in the French bombardment of Syria or the Tsarist crackdowns following the SR assassinations—the incumbent regime's use of indiscriminate violence against the public merely accelerates the radicalization of the populace in favor of the insurgents, creating a self-defeating cycle for the state. Conversely, when insurgencies direct their violence against civilian populations—whether to enforce ideological purity, punish perceived collaboration, or instill societal terror—they actively sabotage their own political viability. The historical trajectories of IMRO in Macedonia and the radical factions of the Cristero movement in Mexico demonstrate that violence against civilians shatters public support, destroys local intelligence networks, and repels international sponsors. The statistical and historical consensus is clear: while civilian targeting may allow an armed group to survive temporarily as a localized terror network or spoiler, it systematically precludes outright victory or the achievement of a favorable negotiated settlement. Ultimately, insurgent violence is only politically effective when it remains strictly bounded by the parameters of the state it seeks to dismantle.

Works cited

1. Strategies of violence and restraint in civil war \- ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/openview/27bf796733cf05f70fe3779b80cffbac/1?pq-origsite=gscholar\&cbl=18750\&diss=y

2. Why Terrorism Does Not Work \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249564142\_Why\_Terrorism\_Does\_Not\_Work

3. Do Terrorists Win? Rebels' Use of Terrorism and Civil War Outcomes, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/do-terrorists-win-rebels-use-of-terrorism-and-civil-war-outcomes/4729B2B926904616190DC38DB3240C8F

4. Why Terrorism Does Not Work | FSI \- CISAC, https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/publications/why\_terrorism\_does\_not\_work

5. Article Review: Do Terrorists Win? Rebels' Use of Terrorism and, https://ahalla-tsauro.medium.com/article-review-do-terrorists-win-5b7837fc1ba6

6. The Logic of Violence in Civil War \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Logic\_of\_Violence\_in\_Civil\_War

7. A THEORY OF SELECTIVE VIOLENCE (Chapter 7), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/logic-of-violence-in-civil-war/theory-of-selective-violence/F536CE68812EFC89D673084F26D8DC36

8. Does Terrorism Ever Work? The 2004 Madrid Train Bombings, https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007\&context=govfacpub

9. Violent Competition and Terrorist Restraint | International Organization, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/violent-competition-and-terrorist-restraint/051235B048F9E283FE8B0ABA26F39086

10. Stathis Kalyvas, the Logic of Violence and the Immobile Peasant, https://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/1282?lang=en

11. Stathis N. Kalyvas, \- THE LOGIC OF VIOLENCE IN CIVIL WAR, https://spaces-cdn.owlstown.com/blobs/i40li5t8umt445jch9sf958w7tsx

12. Why Terrorism Does Not Work \- Semantic Scholar, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Why-Terrorism-Does-Not-Work-Abrahms/44c6b247b1b8cdb27af301364235025244fa1571

13. Inside Rebellion | Territorial Masquerades, https://territorialmasquerades.net/inside-rebellion/

14. Guinea-Bissau War of Independence \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea-Bissau\_War\_of\_Independence

15. Amílcar Cabral: A Nationalist and Pan-Africanist Revolutionary, https://dokumen.pub/amilcar-cabral-a-nationalist-and-pan-africanist-revolutionary-9780821446621-0821446622.html

16. Amilcar Cabral and the South Africans \- Africa Is a Country, https://africasacountry.com/2023/01/amilcar-cabral-and-the-south-africans

17. (PDF) Nationalism, Liberation, and Decolonization in Cabo Verde, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380784484\_Nationalism\_Liberation\_and\_Decolonization\_in\_Cabo\_Verde\_and\_Guinea-Bissau

18. Civil–military relations and political order in Guinea-Bissau, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/civilmilitary-relations-and-political-order-in-guineabissau/120520BC168EBC89753551D6271F9BFF

19. 1925 Hama uprising \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925\_Hama\_uprising

20. Provence, Michael 1966- | Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/provence-michael-1966

21. Rebel Movements and the Great Revolt (Chapter 5), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/occupying-syria-under-the-french-mandate/rebel-movements-and-the-great-revolt/433F70B4D1A435296E33CAAA1D2B440A

22. Full text of "Michael Provence The Great Syrian Revolt And The Rise, https://archive.org/stream/MichaelProvenceTheGreatSyrianRevoltAndTheRiseOfArabNationalism./Michael+Provence+The+Great+Syrian+Revolt+and+the+Rise+of+Arab+Nationalism+.\_djvu.txt

23. Best Podcasts on Syria \- Explaining History Podcast, https://explaininghistory.org/best-podcasts-on-syria/

24. Irish War of Independence \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish\_War\_of\_Independence

25. The Cairo Gang: British Intelligence in Dublin | PDF \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/523435702/Cairo-Gang

26. Spies & Informers \- Clare \- Irish Republican History & Remembrance., http://irishistory.blogspot.com/2013/07/spies-informers-clare-spies-and.html

27. The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916, https://dokumen.pub/the-ira-and-its-enemies-violence-and-community-in-cork-1916-1923-0198205376-9780198205371.html

28. Timeline of the Irish War of Independence \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_the\_Irish\_War\_of\_Independence

29. Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish\_Republican\_Army\_(1922%E2%80%931969)

30. Narodnaya Volya: The Revolutionary Vanguard that Shook Imperial, https://youvan.ai/pdf.php?file=Narodnaya%20Volya%20-%20The%20Revolutionary%20Vanguard%20that%20Shook%20Imperial%20Russia.pdf

31. Counter-Terrorism Module 1 Key Issues: Terrorism in the 19th Century, https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/fr/education/tertiary/terrorism/module-1/key-issues/terrorism-in-19th-century.html

32. The birth of terror: how the first ever suicide bomber emerged in, https://aoav.org.uk/2022/the-birth-of-terror-how-the-first-ever-suicide-bomber-emerged-in-russia-and-changed-the-world-forever/

33. Combat Organization of the Socialist Revolutionary Party \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat\_Organization\_of\_the\_Socialist\_Revolutionary\_Party

34. Religiosity and the Terrorist Subculture of Russian Revolutionaries, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2323\&context=cc\_etds\_theses

35. Socialist Revolutionary Party \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist\_Revolutionary\_Party

36. 1906: Ivan Kalyayev, moralistic assassin \- Executed Today, https://www.executedtoday.com/2010/05/23/1906-ivan-kalyayev-moralistic-assassin/

37. Ève Morisi Staging the Limit, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b74e6691-2eaf-4812-b9e3-a06febd3e111/files/sqv33rz96d

38. The Just Assassins \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Just\_Assassins

39. Perspective Chapter: Historical Experience of Governments of Pre, https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1165660

40. Pogrom \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

41. Friend and Foe : The Agent Provocateur in Late Imperial Russia, https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016\&context=mhr

42. Russian Revolution of 1905 | Military Wiki | Fandom, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Russian\_Revolution\_of\_1905

43. The Azef Affair and Late Imperial Russian Modernity, https://iseees.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2011\_8-morton.pdf

44. Giuseppe Mazzini and Britain's Post Office Espionage Scandal of 1844, https://brewminate.com/giuseppe-mazzini-and-britains-post-office-espionage-scandal-of-1844/

45. “The Origins of Liberal Wilsonianism: Giuseppe Mazzini on Regime, https://www.stefanorecchia.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/03/Recchia\_Mazzini-on-regime-change-with-abstract.pdf

46. The Works and Life of Walter Bagehot, vol. 9 | Online Library of Liberty, https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/barrington-the-works-and-life-of-walter-bagehot-vol-9

47. 6 \- Giuseppe Mazzini in (and beyond) the history of human rights, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/revisiting-the-origins-of-human-rights/giuseppe-mazzini-in-and-beyond-the-history-of-human-rights/613B18FEBB912C243AF1A76E5F625F0E

48. Wars to 1923 \- Italy Revisited by Mary Melfi, http://www.italyrevisited.org/photo/wars\_to\_1923

49. Expedition of the Thousand \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition\_of\_the\_Thousand

50. History of Bourbon Sicily \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Bourbon\_Sicily

51. Latin America's Wars Volume I \- The Age of The Caudillo, 1791, https://www.scribd.com/document/579531248/Latin-America-s-Wars-Volume-I-the-Age-of-the-Caudillo-1791-1899-PDFDrive

52. History of Latin America Textbook \- studylib.net, https://studylib.net/doc/26106708/benjamin-keen--keith-haynes---a-history-of-latin-america-...

53. Fifty Years of Peasant Wars in Latin America 9781789205626, https://dokumen.pub/fifty-years-of-peasant-wars-in-latin-america-9781789205626.html

54. Venezuela, the Present as Struggle: Voices from the Bolivarian, https://dokumen.pub/venezuela-the-present-as-struggle-voices-from-the-bolivarian-revolutoin-9781583678640-9781583678657.html

55. reconstruction of land administration in post conflict conditions, https://www.terrainstitute.org/pdf/rcon\_Landadmin%20PstCnflct%20.pdf

56. (PDF) The role of land records in support of post-conflict state, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331036348\_The\_role\_of\_land\_records\_in\_support\_of\_post-conflict\_state\_building-the\_case\_of\_Rwanda\_The\_Role\_of\_Land\_Records\_in\_Support\_of\_Post-Conflict\_Land\_Administration\_within\_overall\_State\_Building-the\_Case\_o

57. Post conflict land tenure, https://www.fao.org/4/j5415e/j5415e03.htm

58. Venezuelan Politics in the Chavez Era: Class, Polarization, and, https://dokumen.pub/venezuelan-politics-in-the-chavez-era-class-polarization-and-conflict-9781685855918.html

59. Jihadist groups pose a growing and expanding threat in Africa, https://acleddata.com/report/jihadist-groups-pose-growing-and-expanding-threat-africa

60. Assessing Misaligned Counterinsurgency Practice in Niger and, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347316496\_Assessing\_Misaligned\_Counterinsurgency\_Practice\_in\_Niger\_and\_Nigeria

61. The Logic of Violence in Civil War, https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780511223075\_A23690356/preview-9780511223075\_A23690356.pdf

62. Violence Against Civilians During Armed Conflict \- Annual Reviews, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102229?crawler=true\&mimetype=application/pdf

63. Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal\_Macedonian\_Revolutionary\_Organization

64. Macedonian Struggle \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian\_Struggle

65. 1908-1912 Survival & Coexistence \- Sklithro-Zelenich-Sebalći, https://sklithro-zelenic.com/1908-1912-survival-coexistence/

66. Historians are Being Asked to Spin Simple Stories of Nationalism, https://historyguild.org/historians-are-being-asked-to-spin-simple-stories-of-nationalism-the-past-wont-cooperate/

67. Cristero War \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero\_War

68. The Movement that Sinned Twice: The Cristero War and Mexican, https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135\&context=history-in-the-making

69. The Long Shadow of Mexico's War Over Catholicism, https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-long-shadow-of-mexicos-war-over-catholicism/

70. Religious Violence and the Secular State in 1930s Mexico | The, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/americas/article/martyrs-fanatics-and-pious-militants-religious-violence-and-the-secular-state-in-1930s-mexico/F17C673ED7A92D3BB986310369040649

71. (PDF) Violence and Restraint in Civil War: Civilian Targeting in the, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326549234\_Violence\_and\_Restraint\_in\_Civil\_War\_Civilian\_Targeting\_in\_the\_Shadow\_of\_International\_Law\_by\_Jessica\_A\_Stanton

72. Full article: Introduction: promoting restraint in war \- Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03050629.2021.1931864