Layout of the Dissertation. The remainder of the dissertation proceeds as follows. In Chapter 2, I review some of the existing insights regarding insurgency and assemble a theory as to how CDFs might affect COIN outcomes. In Chapter 3, I present a crossnational research design along with two samples based on two different lists of insurgencies that started and ended between 1945 to 2006. Chapter 3 also details the results of statistical analyses of the assembled data, discusses the broader implications of the study, as well as points to some avenues for future research. In Chapter 4, I construct a formal model aiming to account for the apparent puzzle of why so few states have resorted to CDF deployment if indeed it is so useful to COIN effort. One of the model’s main predictions is that incumbents should be more inclined to delegate auxiliary duty to civilians when the target population has demonstrable internal rivalries, which make the acquisition of government-provided weapons highly desirable. In this same chapter, the concept of tribalism is introduced as a reasonable proxy for civilian rivalries owing to tribal communities’ proclivity to engage in longstanding internecine conflicts. In order to put the formal model to an empirical test, in Chapter 5 I outline a subnational research design as well as present the results of statistical analyses. The concluding chapter summarizes the main theoretical and empirical contributions of this study, discusses its implications for the broader political science literature on intrastate war, and outlines a possible future research agenda. Last, the appendices provide a complete documentation for the coding of CDFs and COIN outcomes as well as a tabular representation of both the cross- and subnational data set employed in this study. Part I CDFs and Counterinsurgency Outcomes Chapter 2 Insurgency, Counterinsurgency, and Civilian Auxiliaries
Layout of the Dissertation. The next chapter addresses the literature on risk-taking in international relations, with an emphasis on prospect theory. This is followed by a review of the literature on the influence of leaders’ personalities in international relations and an explanation of the “Big Five” factor model of personality traits, the dominant paradigm in trait psychology. It then discusses the results of studies in business, psychology, and political science to establish the links between personality traits and risk-preferences, which motivate the four hypotheses that form the foundation of a personality-led theory of risk-taking. Chapter 3 examines issues of research design and focuses largely on the data set of U.S. presidents’ personality traits that will be used throughout the following four empirical chapters. Chapters 4 and 5 will assess the four hypotheses regarding risk-related traits and foreign policy on two different types of risk-taking behavior – the initiation of force and the escalation of crises. Chapters 6 and 7 present case studies of presidential decision making during a foreign policy crisis: Xxxxx Xxxxxx and the 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx and the 1961 Berlin Ultimatum Crisis. The concluding chapter reviews the findings of the four empirical chapters and addresses the implications for the fields of international relations and leadership analysis. For instance, in addition to shedding light on why some leaders choose conflict while others do not, the results also raise questions about the role of leaders’ reputations and targeting strategies by other states. Understanding risky leaders can also inform scholarship on the duration of war, such as why some leaders “xxxxxx for resurrection,” thereby prolonging inevitable defeat. The interactions between personality traits and environmental factors will be discussed in light of the findings from the case studies. As scholars have begun to pay more attention to the role of individual differences in shaping political outcomes, they have also sought to determine when personality has a direct influence and when its influence is mediated through other factors. Future research will be able to analyze past and current policy decisions through this new theoretical framework. Chapter 2
