The Fortification Dilemma: Border Control and Rebel Violence

Abstract

Where cross-border sanctuaries enable rebels to marshal external support, classical theories of counterinsurgency extol the strategic value of border fortification. By sealing borders, counterinsurgents can erode transnational militants’ resources, degrading the quality of rebellion. Extending resource-centric theories of conflict, I posit a fortification dilemma inherent in this strategy. Externally-supplied rebels can afford conventional attacks and civilian victimization. When border fortifications interdict their foreign logistics, insurgents compensate by cultivating greater local support. In turn, rebels prefer more irregular attacks and cooperative relations with civilians. Hence, counterinsurgent border fortification trades-off reduced rebel capabilities for greater competition over local hearts-and-minds. I test this theory using declassified microdata on border fortification and violence in Iraq. Results highlight the central link between border control and cross-border militancy, and show how governments can contest the transnational dimensions of civil wars, like external rebel sponsorship.

Border Anxiety in International Discourse

“…We do not deny that some border issues and locations do pose very real threats, but building border barriers may not always be linked to objective measures of “globalization” or “security.” State leaders may be influenced by the sentiments, emotions, and narratives they hear in global forums, or they may draw on them strategically for domestic political purposes or to justify symbolic investments in border walls and fences. This is particularly notable in light of recent research showing that border barriers can have unanticipated consequences for migration (Schon and Leblang 2021), trade (Carter and Poast 2020), counterinsurgency strategies (Blair 2022), human rights (Paz 2016), the environment (Peters et al. 2018), and even states’ “soft power” (Mutz and Simmons 2022).…”

“…Combined with a motive to adopt anxious or broadly negative rhetoric, such discourse can diffuse in ways that are not always related to circumstances on the ground. Nonetheless, such discourse is not meaningless: We show it is associated with the construction of border barriers, which burgeoning research shows do not always have the intended consequences (Blair 2022;Carter and Poast 2020;Schon and Leblang 2021).…”

Infrastructure and authority at the state’s edge: The Border Crossings of the World dataset

“…Systematic global data are needed to understand where, when, and how states are responding to perceived border threats with new infrastructural investments. Advances in geolocation and spatial analysis have encouraged researchers to document the consequences of border hardening, though much of the best research remains localized (Laughlin, 2018;Getmanski et al, 2019;Blair, 2022). These cases demonstrate the importance of border security research in a spatially specific and dynamic context and provide tantalizing indications of securitized borders.…”

Team Production on the Battlefield: Evidence from NATO in Afghanistan

“…4 Our paper is clearly complementing these last two studies, but its focus is not on individual incentives, but on organizational aspects. On the specific question of border reinforcements, Blair (2023) provide evidence from Iraq showing how border protections reduce the victimization of civilians by rebel fighters. 5 Richard and Vanden Eynde (2023) study a question that is complementary to our study of cooperation frictions: these authors find that institutionalized cooperation between national armies in the Sahel region improved security around the international borders.…”