Социально-демографический портрет офицерского состава 7-го Камышловского (27-го Камышловско-Оровайского) горных стрелков полка

Reviewed by: Fighting Means Killing: Civil War Soldiers and the Nature of Combat by Jonathan M. Steplyk Kathryn J. Shively (bio) Fighting Means Killing: Civil War Soldiers and the Nature of Combat. By Jonathan M. Steplyk. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2018. Pp. 304. Cloth, $29.95.) Fighting Means Killing probes a question that many civilians long to ask of returning veterans: "Did you kill anybody?" (5). Moreover, it invokes that question's illicit companion: If so, did you enjoy it? As Jonathan Steplyk acknowledges, these are distinctly post–Vietnam War inquiries. Since the late 1970s, antiwar activists have often preferred to characterize soldiers as the victims or, at least, the instruments of unethical military or governmental overlords. Killing came to be understood as an avoidable, objectionable aspect of war with lasting psychological consequences for veterans. In applying these questions to the American Civil War, Steplyk reveals that, in contrast to modern civilian mores, Confederate and Federal soldiers generally "affirmed and accepted killing" as necessary to their jobs and to the success of their respective causes (7). The societies that produced them likewise legitimized killing, despite the fact that enemies had so recently been fellow Americans. The majority of the book, then, teases out the "spectrum of readiness, willingness, and enthusiasm" to kill along which soldiers on both sides felt and behaved, marking two extremes (7). On one end, some soldiers—particularly Confederates acting against United States Colored Troops and, conversely, black soldiers [End Page 316] issuing reprisals—executed surrendering soldiers. On the other end, some men—restrained by religious values or caught in moments of enraptured fraternization—flatly refused to take lives. The monograph unfolds in seven chapters, six of which form interrelated pairs. The first chapter illustrates a broad array of prewar cultural factors that may have shaped wartime attitudes toward killing, such as adherence to the Bible, experience with slaughtering animals, and the inflammation of animosity during the sectional crisis. The second and third chapters provide an overview of killing in the Civil War and the language employed to describe it, the latter of which often emphasized a businesslike acceptance of combat's most brutal mandate. Throughout these two chapters, Steplyk includes useful observations about the factors that helped soldiers to cope with killing, such as the black smoke that obscured their views or the parabolic arc of their projectiles, both of which prevented leveling aim at individual humans. Chapters 4 and 5 explore the fringe experiences of hand-to-hand combat and sharpshooting. Of particular interest is Steplyk's challenge to the historiographical mainstay that sharpshooters were widely despised. He contends that the main evidence for this assumption rests on two famous accounts by artillerists, who, uniquely exposed at their guns, had ample reason to loathe sharpshooters. Otherwise, Steplyk suggests, infantry soldiers tended to admire their exceptionally skilled comrades, while sharpshooters themselves took pride in their kills and maintained a strict code of conduct. The final two chapters also look to the margins of experience to understand who killed with the most and the least zeal. The latter chapter specifically examines how race prompted executions on both sides. These topics are well trod in the literature, and Steplyk sides with those scholars, such as Mark Neely and Mark Grimsley, who reject the Civil War as total, emphasizing its limits. There are a number of aspects to admire in this monograph. Steplyk hopes to bridge the gap between traditional and new military history, using the sources of both, including diaries, letters, memoirs, training manuals, and official records. He succeeds in presenting a military history topic that will, no doubt, have considerable appeal in academic and public spheres. Moreover, Steplyk's work is a contribution to the branch of Civil War social history that examines the soldier's internal life rather than material experiences. This is an area of study inaugurated by Gerald Linderman's Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War (1987), a work based on limited research and strongly colored by the Vietnam War, which concludes that combat undermined Civil War soldiers' self-conceptions of manliness, courage, and honor, rendering a [End Page 317] generation traumatized. Since Linderman, Earl Hess, Randall Jimerson...

The use of forced recruitment strategies during war can adversely affect military effectiveness and human rights. Given these costs, under what conditions do state leaders adopt coercive recruitment during civil wars? We find that between 1980 and 2009, states changed their recruitment practices 140 times during civil wars – half of which were towards coercive recruitment. Since structuralist explanations focus on factors that remain more or less constant over time, they cannot explain the frequency of these changes. Instead, we focus on individual-level factors and argue that leaders’ dispositions as risk-takers determine their beliefs about using force to solve collective action dilemmas during civil wars. Further, conflict context matters for leaders’ recruitment decisions – when rebel groups engage in coercive recruitment, leaders may also feel more justified in using such strategies. Using the LEAD Dataset and data on recruitment, we find that risk-tolerant leaders, including those who have had careers in the security sector, as well as those who have prior experience as a rebel or revolutionary leader, are more likely to use force to increase recruitment. While we theorize that this effect may be mitigated by combat experience, the evidence is mixed. Lastly, we find that rebels’ use of forced recruitment makes state leaders less likely to use voluntary recruitment.

More like a Painting – The War: A Ken Burns Film: An Interview with Roger Spiller Frank J. Wetta (bio) and Martin A. Novelli (bio) The following interview with military historian Roger Spiller has two purposes: first, to examine aspects of the making of the Ken Burns documentary and, second, to discuss the role and ethics of the historian as film advisor. Roger Spiller, now George C. Marshall Professor, emeritus, of Military History at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, is the author of An Instinct for War: Scenes from the Battlefields of History (2005) and is an editor of the two-volume anthology Reporting World War II (1995–2007), among other works. A collection of his essays entitled In the School of War is forthcoming from the University of Nebraska Press. From 2004 to 2007, Spiller served as an advisor for The War: A Ken Burns Film (PBS Home Video) as well as The War: An Intimate History, 1941–1945 (New York: Knopf, 2007), a companion volume written by Geoffrey C. Ward. Directed and produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, the series is a fifteen-hour television documentary on World War II first seen on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) network in September 2007. Burns is best known for his PBS series The Civil War: A Ken Burns Film (1990)—one of the most influential documentaries in film history. The Civil War was truly unique in its creative innovations and the popular reaction to it (over forty million viewers). [End Page 1397] If his latest work does not achieve the extraordinary success of the Civil War documentary, this “intimate” story of the American civilian and military experience of World War II, with its revelations about the common man (no generals here) and its uncompromising images of the battlefield, is compelling in its own right. What led Burns to invite you to join the project? Was he familiar with your work? At what stage did you become involved? What, exactly, did he ask you to do? Paul Fussell recommended me. I don’t think Ken had read any of my stuff before then, but I think he did later on, especially the pieces having to do with the experience of combat, the soldier’s life, “shell shock,” and such. Lynn Novick asked if I would join the board of advisors as the military historian. I thought at first that my role would be limited to the military history of it only, but as the project went along the team involved me in just about every aspect of the production—the concept; the design; the content; the scope of the episodes; the sound effects, and even the music. One of the reasons I was attracted to this offer was the prospect of learning something about film making in general, and historical documentaries in particular, and I was certainly not disappointed. What I did not anticipate at all was that I would learn a great deal more history as well. The other advisors include historians Lizabeth Cohen; David Kennedy; William Leuchtenburg; religious scholar Martin E. Marty; and the former editor of American Heritage, Richard Snow. Samuel Hynes and Paul Fussell appear in the series as well as serving as advisors. What was your particular contribution? What interaction, if any, did you have with the other advisors or participants in the project? I think I must have been the last, or one of the last, advisors to be invited to participate. When Lynn told me who else was on the board, I was excited—and relieved—to learn that several of the others knew a great deal of military history themselves. Paul Fussell, Sam Hynes, and Richard Snow and I were already acquainted. Paul and I had met in the early ‘eighties. Sam and I had worked on a couple of projects for the Library of America, and Richard had recruited me in the early ‘nineties as a contributing editor for American Heritage. Others, like William Leuchtenberg, I certainly knew by their very fine reputations, and I felt privileged to be able to work with them. Although we each had our specialties, we were all engaged in the widest possible...

140CIVIL WAR HISTORY The War Between the States is central to a multifaceted inspection from the tactically analytical to the numerous aspects of what constitutes the New Military History. Furthermore, despite this exhaustive appraisal, each year produces at least one work that unearths new evidence or examines the tried and new in such an innovative manner as to constitute something exceptional. Shook Over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress Vietnam and the Civil War is such a work. It must be stated at the outset that, save for a concluding chapter, the impact of theVietnam War on itsAmerican participants serves only to frame Eric Dean's discussion. In the course of two concise, but nonetheless informative chapters, Dean examines the changing interpretation ofthe effects of the Vietnam War on those who survived and the history of military psychiatry from the GreatWar to Vietnam. Upon this foundation he proceeds to establish the parameters of that special hell created by a close formation and the rifled musket. A time of suffering and tribulation which found focus in such works as Gerald Linderman's Embattled Courage, "Seeing the Elephant," by Frank and Reaves, or The Union Soldier in Battle, by Earl J. Hess. This work is not, however, a further explication of battlefield behavior. Rather, Shook Over Hell addresses the post-war experiences of a specific group of veterans, 29 1 men committed to the Indiana Hospital for the Insane from 1861 to 19 19. The sample is not statistically valid nor sufficiently random; the author takes pains to establish that fact. Notwithstanding, the information revealed, when placed in the context established by the preceding chapters, is indeed compelling . Within the frame of reference previously elaborated, and in accord with the assumptions derived therefrom, Eric Dean avers that post-traumatic stress made its appearance in the United States more than a century before the first American involvement in South Vietnam. Shook Over Hell fills a vital niche in the historiography of American Civil War combat studies. It will stand as a significant signpost directing any future endeavors in this area. Eric Dean deserves a commendation for this expansion of what began as a seminar paper at Purdue University in 1987. Unfortunately, Dean did not see fit to leave well enough alone. He chose to reconsider what he views as the mythology of the Vietnam veteran. In a confrontational, perhaps irrelevant concluding chapter Dean offers what he may view as a breath offresh air. Others may see it as the ultimate victimization of those who found it necessary to serve their country in a war whose merits are still subject to debate. J. K. Sweeney South Dakota State University The Union Soldier in Battle: Enduring the Ordeal ofCombat. By Earl J. Hess. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997. Pp. xii, 244. $29.95.) In recent years, when historians are marching away from drums and trumpets to help us understand the nature of the Civil War, Earl Hess marches back to the BOOK REVIEWSI4I trenches to help us understand the nature of combat. His latest volume, The Union Soldier in Battle, fills a void on the short shelf of works devoted to the Union soldiers' combat experiences. His book compliments the works of Gerald Linderman, Reid Mitchel, Randall Jimerson, and most recently James McPherson in helping to place the soldiers' experiences in a proper political, social, and philosophical context. Though he never leaves the battlefield, he nonetheless focuses on the relationship among the nature of battle, soldier morale, and the sustaining ideological and emotional framework from which the soldiers drew. The result is a disturbing examination of how soldiers interpreted the war and their role in it. In the first few chapters, Hess weaves a perceptive analysis of what Union soldiers experienced before, during, and after combat. It comes as no surprise that the experience of the combat environment helped shape soldiers into warriors . Battle was a comprehensive physical experience of the senses that surrounded the soldier, yethe had no control overthe environment. Forthose soldiers who could bring themselves to discuss the physical and emotional horrors of combat, chaos was the theme most consistently used to describe their experiences . It wrecked the military discipline that they had...

Who are the leaders who end civil wars through peace agreements? I theorize that the prior combat experience of a state leader is an important life experience with direct relevance for how leaders evaluate conflict outcomes. Combat experience increases sensitivity to human losses and gives the state leader a hawkish reputation, increasing internal support, boosting their risk-tolerance, and convincing the rebel leader to take the leader seriously. Using a nested research design, I show that civil wars are more likely to terminate in peace agreements when the leader in charge knows the battlefield. I supplement the quantitative analysis of all state leaders in civil conflicts from 1989 to 2015 with a qualitative pathway case of Indonesia’s President Yudhoyono. These findings expand upon insights on leaders’ attributes indicating that prior combat experience has different effects on potential conflict outcomes in intrastate than in international wars.

This article explores how the public understands military service and diversity. Using a conjoint survey experiment, we ask respondents to select between two candidates for promotion. We randomly present respondents’ two profiles, which vary the candidates’ gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, number of years served, number of deployments, combat experience, and branch of the military. We find that respondents do not discount candidates based on their branch of service, gender, race, or marital status. However, respondents do weigh the candidates’ combat experience, number of years served, and number of deployments favorably. Finally, respondents penalize candidates based on their sexual orientation: Homosexual individuals are less likely to be selected for promotion. Furthermore, respondents especially discounted transgender individuals for promotion. Important differences, we show in this article, also exist between conservative and liberal respondents, as well as between male and female respondents.

The Spanish Civil War was the most intensive experience of combat for the Luftwaffe before World War II. However, the vast majority of the literature ascribes only a rather passive contribution of the air war over Spain to the historical development of the Luftwaffe's airpower doctrine; indeed, traditional views assert that the Spanish Civil War in the air only permitted the German Air Force to test a predetermined blitzkrieg doctrine and practice a pre‐decided tactic of dive‐bombing utilising the Junkers Ju‐87 Stuka. This article analyses Luftwaffe doctrine before and after the Spanish Civil War in conjunction with the roles actually performed by German military aircraft during the conflict in order to assess to what degree civil war combat experience may have changed Luftwaffe airpower doctrine. The monograph concludes that the Civil War had a tremendous impact on the Luftwaffe combat doctrine with which Germany entered the World War in 1939. The paramount revolution being the modernisation of Luftwaffe air superiority (fighter) tactics.

An examination of the relation between combat experiences and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder in a sample of Connecticut OEF–OIF Veterans

Brief Reports: Psychiatric Illness and Substance Abuse Among Homeless Asian-American Veterans

This review of the monograph "Minin: A Portrait on the Background of the Era” assesses the results of studying biography and political activities of the prominent representative of the Bolshevik party, who greatly contributed to the establishment and consolidation of the Soviet power in Southern Russia. The authors of the book have discovered and generalized considerable factual material concerning Sergey Konstantinovich Minin’s formation as a revolutionary and introduced into scientific use a set of documents indicating his place in organizing the defense of Tsaritsyn against the White armies during the Civil War. The review underscores relevance and informational value of work accomplished by the Volgograd historians. The monograph contains materials highlighting the role of local leaders in the Bolsheviks’ confident victory in the elections to the Tsaritsyn City Duma in the summer of 1917; S.K. Minin’s relations with V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin; correlation of changes in the party hierarchy with struggles for power in Soviet Russia during the Civil War and in the 1920s. The review notes great value of unique photographs and documents, which have been revealed in the fonds of central and local archives and are being published for the first time. The analysis of letters, leaflets, articles, and telegrams provides an opportunity to trace the evolution of S.K. Minin’s views on the situation in Russia in the era of Soviet formation; his outstanding talent as publicist and propagandist is evident. The reference and bibliographic apparatus of the publication deserves praise. It identifies published and unpublished sources, as well as achievements and gaps in the historiography on the topic. The review contends the importance of the book for revision of conventional assessments of the Soviet historiography concerning the Bolsheviks’ essential role in the overthrow of czarism in Russia, dual power in the center and regions in the spring and summer of 1917, V.I. Lenin’s party coming to power following the Great October Socialist Revolution, “triumphal march of the Soviet power,” brilliant or (after the exposure of the cult of personality in 1956) destabilizing role of J.V. Stalin in the defense of Tsaritsyn. The author of the review contends great subjectivity of the memoirs about S.K. Minin written by his relatives, which are being introduced into scientific use, and continuing underestimation of his role in the revolutionary struggles and the Civil War in Russia. The prospects for further research lie in scientific search and analysis of documents found in the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the Central State Archives of Historical and Political Documents of St. Petersburg.

Recent research has drawn attention to the role of socialization in shaping the behaviors of rebel combatants during civil wars. In particular, scholars have highlighted how vertical and horizontal socialization dynamics can bring combatants to engage in a range of wartime practices, including the use of violence against civilians. This article synthesizes existing theories of combatant socialization and combines them into an integrated framework, which casts the focus on individual pathways toward civilian targeting and specifies the underlying sociopsychological mechanisms through which socializing influences motivate participation in violence. Specifically, the article charts five key pathways that operate through different mechanisms and that are based upon varying degrees of internalization regarding the legitimacy of civilian targeting. In each case, I also identify a number of unit-level factors that are likely to make a given pathway particularly prevalent among combatants. The article then illustrates how these pathways map onto the actual experiences of civil war combatants by examining the drivers of individual participation in violence against civilians among low-ranking members of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. The case study evidence highlights the equifinal nature of violence perpetration during civil wars, shedding light on the different social needs, influences, sanctions, and constraints that may motivate involvement in violence. By analyzing rebel behavior through the prism of perpetrator studies, this article thus seeks to establish the civil war literature on firmer theoretical grounds, providing a synthetic account of the individual experiences, motives, and trajectories that are often left unaddressed in this body of research.

Book reviwed in this article From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation. By A. B. Bosworth. The Jews in the Greek Age. By Elias J. Bickerman. Greeks, Romans and Barbarians. By Barry Cunliffe. On Pagans, Jews, and Christians. By Arnaldo Momigliano. The Crusades: A Short History. By Jonathan Riley‐Smith. Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom: The Legend of the Kingdom of Prester John. By L. N. Gumilev. Translated by R. E. F. Smith. The Papal Prince, One Body and Two Souls: The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe. By Paolo Prodi. Translated by Susan Haskins. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. By Sheppard Frere. The English: A Social History, 1066–1945. By Christopher Hibbert. Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500–1600. By Barmaid MacCulloch. Village Revolts: Social Protest and Popular Disturbances in England, 1509–1640. By Roger B. Manning. The Civil Wars of England. By J. P. Kenyon. Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660. By Ann Hughes. Charles I and Oliver Cromwell: A Study in Contrasts and Comparisons. By Maurice Ashley. Criticism and Compliment. The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I. By Kevin Sharpe. London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis. By Tim Harris. The Quakers and the English Legal System, 1660–1688. By Craig W. Horle. Ladies Elect: Women in English Local Government, 1865–1914. By Patricia Hollis. Nobles in Nineteenth‐Century France. The Practice of Inegalitarianism. By David Higgs. The Search for Social Peace: Reform Legislation in France, 1890–1914. By Judith F. Stone. The Reluctant Empress: A Biography of Empress Elisabeth of Austria. By Brigitte Hamann. Translated by Ruth Hein. Philip IV and the Government of Spain, 1621–1665. By R. A. Stradling. Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin. By Deborah Hertz. Rethinking German History: Nineteenth‐Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich. By Richard J. Evans. Germany and Europe in the Era of the Two World Wars: Essays in Honor of Oron James Hale. Edited by F. X. J. Homer and Larry D. Wilcox. The Making of Three Russian Revolutionaries: Voices from the Menshevik Past. By Leopold H. Haimson in collaboration with Ziva Galilii y Garcia and Richard Wortman. Stalin: Man and Ruler. By Robert H. McNeal. Soviet Succession Struggles: Kremlinology and the Russian Question from Lenin to Gorbachev. By Anthony D'Agostino. Cecil Rhodes: Flawed Colossus. By Brian Roberta. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632–1715. By David W. Jordan. “To Serve Well and Faithfully”: Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, 1682–1800. By Sharon V. Salinger. The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. By John Phillip Reid. Rhetoric and History in Revolutionary New England. By Donald Weber. Greatness in The White House: Rating the Presidents, Washington Through Carter. By Robert K. Murray and Tim H. Blessing. Towards a Christian Republic: Antimasonry and the Great Transition in New England, 1826–1836. By Paul Goodman. The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776–1848. By Robin Blackburn. Paupers and Poor Relief in New York City and Its Rural Environs, 1700–1830. By Robert E. Cray Jr. A House Divided: Sectionalism and Ciuil War, 1848–1865. [The American Moment Series.] By Richard H. Sewell. Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War. By Gerald F. Linderman. The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800–1907. By Thomas D. Hamm. Feud: Hatfields. McCoys, and Social Change in Appalachia, 1860–1900. By Altina L. Waller. Gilded Age Cato: The Life of Walter Q. Gresham. By Charles W. Calhoun. Badge and Buckshot: Lawlessness in Old California. By John Boessenecker. No Step Backward: Women and Family on the Rocky Mountain Mining Frontier, Helena, Montana, 1865–1900. By Paula Petrik. Heartland: Comparative Histories of the Midwestern States. [Midwestern History and Culture Series.] Edited by James H. Madison. The Presidencies of Grover Cleveland. [American Presidency Series.] By Richard E. Welch Jr. A History of Neglect: Health Care for Blacks and Mill Workers in the Twentieth‐Century South. By Edward H. Beardsley. Toward a New Deal in Baltimore: People and Government in the Great Depression. By Jo Ann E. Argersinger. Black Coal Miners in America: Race, Class, and Community Conflict, 1780–1980. By Ronald L. Lewis. Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude. By Paul J. Nahin. Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War. By Eric Larrabee. William Fulbright and the Vietnam War. By William C. Berman. The Cold War Begins in Asia. [Contemporary American History Series.] By Marc S. Gallicchio. Mexico through Russian Eyes, 1806–1940. By William Harrison Richardson.

This book highlights the contributions of a Russian immigrant who became a Union officer during the Civil War. John Basil Turchin left Czarist Russia to embrace democracy in America. When the Civil War began, he rushed to defend the Union, his formal training in the Imperial Russian Army and his combat experience in the Crimean making him a valuable officer. A man of conviction, he refused to be intimidated by commanding officers that were lenient toward rebels and the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. His subsequent court martial turned the trial into a focal point for Northern debate on the conduct of the war and the issue of slavery. John Basil Turchin left Czarist Russia to embrace democracy in America. When the Civil War began, he rushed to defend the Union, his formal training in the Imperial Russian Army and his combat experience in the Crimean making him a valuable officer. He was among those determined to see the war as revolutionary—a vehicle by which to put an end to Southern aristocracy and the institution of slavery. A man of conviction, he refused to be intimidated by commanding officers that were lenient toward rebels and the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. His actions during the Union thrust into northern Alabama in the spring of 1862 led to his court martial. The national attention given to the proceedings turned the trial into a focal point for Northern debate on the conduct of the war and the issue of slavery. Turchin took advantage of his exposure during the trial to express his position to the nation. His reinstatement by Lincoln in the aftermath of the court-martial and his promotion to brigadier general signaled that the administration was beginning to take a stronger position. The Emancipation Proclamation, delivered by Lincoln shortly thereafter, transformed the war into a crusade to free the slaves. John Basil Turchin returned to the field and played important roles on the battlefields of Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge.

Conclusions: * Absent political and military reforms, Colombia risks either becoming a narcostate or disintegrating. * Popular discontent with government policies indicates Colombia is ripe for a dirty war. * The FARC and ELN will continue their involvement in the drug business to increase their wealth. * Insurgent activity will increase, especially in areas where government control is limited. * The potential loss of democracy in Colombia threatens regional stability. Colombia Nears Critical Juncture Since 1966, Colombia's internal security has been disrupted by the actions of two guerrilla forces, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC) and the Ejercito de Liberaci(n Nacional (National Liberation Army, ELN). Recent attacks against the military, economy, and civilian populace are creating havoc for Colombian leaders and citizens; combat operations have averaged two encounters daily for a year. Although the guerrillas lack the military strength to topple the government, their destructiveness has the potential to destabilize Colombia's political institutions. Colombia could, in fact, collapse as a nation. Government institutions are weak, especially in the areas occupied by the guerrillas and drug cartels. Breakdown is already occurring in several areas where government presence is negligible. Anarchy could set in if reforms to strengthen national institutions are not implemented soon, and the government might begin a dirty war to preempt the disintegration of Colombia. The FARC, the largest and most powerful of Colombia's guerrilla organizations (7,700 troops), is well-armed and financed following years of kidnapping, extortion, tax collection, and involvement in the illegal drug trade. The ELN, though smaller (2,500 troops), is almost as wealthy and causes as much damage. With the collapse of Soviet and Cuban financial support, insurgent operations have been partially funded by the cocaine and heroin business, estimated to supply half of the guerrillas' annual $.5 to 1.5 billion income. Only a small portion of this income is used to purchase weapons and other military equipment to maintain operational and combat activities (estimated at $20 million per year). The balance is invested in land, transportation businesses, and a well-managed portfolio. This bolsters the armed forces' argument that the insurgents in Colombia are in the business for the money, not the ideology. Estimates of the insurgent's damage to Colombia's economy range as high as $1.5 billion per year (4% of the 1994 GDP). This includes the cost of damage caused by violence, direct defense (up to 3.27% of GDP), lost business, and human life [see Figure 1]. The Insurgents Doctrine and Ideology. The FARC had its origins in the civil war--between the Liberals and Conservatives--that erupted into the episode known as La Violencia (1948-1965). Officially established in 1966, the FARC was the armed wing of the Colombian Communist Party, and still pushes a Marxist-Leninist platform of a massive redistribution of land and wealth, state control of natural resources, increased government spending on social welfare (to 50% of government expenditures), and a non-military solution (probably legalization) to the illegal drug problem. The FARC attacks the entire business sector. The more recently organized ELN follows a similar agenda, though it primarily targets the oil industry, pressuring for nationalization. The FARC has doubled its membership since 1986, and operates in over 70% of the country. ELN troop strength has remained static for several years. Leadership. Recent insurgent leadership changes have increasingly decentralized the high command's power. Front leaders now achieve influence through money, rather than ideology or combat experience, thus explaining their willingness to get involved in the drug business. …

ABSTRACTThis article examines the consequences of civil war and power-sharing settlements for the development of sectarian networks of mobilization. While power-sharing presents a viable mechanism for ending civil war, it allows the participating militias-turned-parties access to state resources and leaves their population networks and organizations intact. This continuity reduces the militias-turned-parties’ start-up costs for violent mobilization in the future, enabling them to mobilize more effectively than new parties with no combat experience. I exploit rich variation in the wartime legacies and settlement status of the major postwar parties in Lebanon to explain whether and how parties mobilized during the clashes of May 2008, the most serious internal violence to plague Lebanon since the end of its civil war in 1990.