| Why do governments commit civilian victimization in war---military policies or strategies that target noncombatants intentionally with deadly force, or which use force in an indiscriminate way such that the deaths of large numbers of civilians is a foreseeable consequence? Are some types of states more or less prone to choose such strategies? In particular, are liberal democracies less likely than autocracies to victimize civilians during wars?; My answer, based on an investigation of interstate and colonial wars in the last two centuries, is that the regime type of a state exerts little influence on the choice of governments to target civilians in warfare. In fact, in a statistical analysis of all interstate war participants from 1816 to 2003, I find that liberal democracies use force against noncombatants at about the same rate as do non-liberal states. Rather, I argue that choices to victimize civilians in war are primarily determined by the costs of the war and leaders' confidence that they will achieve their political/military goals. States naturally wish to win wars in an economical fashion, and leaders value the lives of their own people over those of foreigners, which makes them willing to transfer those costs abroad and harm innocents if they believe it may confer military advantage. As the costs of the war rise and/or leaders' calculations of the probability of victory fall, therefore, civilian victimization becomes increasingly likely as a means to manage costs or as an additional means to pressure the enemy and win the war. In short, states---including democracies---prize victory and preserving the lives of their own people above humanity in warfare (or abandoning their goals). I trace the causal power of this argument in case studies of strategic bombing, naval blockade, counterinsurgency, and ethnic cleansing by both democracies and autocracies in the 20th century. |
