ABSTRACT

Hating America – and attacking Americans – can seem like a mandatory activity for rebels; yet, only a minority of rebel groups actually harm Americans. Under what circumstances do rebel groups target Americans? To answer these questions, we leverage the Big Allied And Dangerous 2 data – Insurgency subsample (BAAD2-I). Our model focuses on two classes of rebel motives: direct and indirect. Direct motives are those in which Americans play a central role in rebel group grievances. They include ideology, deployment of American troops, and American support for rebels’ government-based opponents. Indirect motives are those that encourage anti-American attacks because of their powerful symbolic value. This distinction speaks to ongoing policy debates within the United States about the most effective policy instruments to defeat extremism abroad. Contrary to common perceptions, we find that attacks on Americans are unrelated to group ideology. Instead, deployment of American troops and military assistance is positively associated with attacks on Americans, as is economic penetration. Conversely, rebel groups in countries with substantial exports to the US or featuring a long-term presence of American cultural artifacts are less likely to attack Americans. Our findings highlight the value of a ‘soft power’ orientation in American foreign policy.

摘要

憎恨美国——并攻击美国人——对叛军来说似乎是一项强制性活动；然而，只有少数反叛团体真正伤害了美国人。反叛组织在什么情况下针对美国人？为了回答这些问题，我们利用 Big Allied And Dangerous 2 数据 - 叛乱子样本 (BAAD2-I)。我们的模型侧重于两类反叛动机：直接和间接。直接动机是美国人在反叛团体的不满中发挥核心作用的动机。它们包括意识形态、美国军队的部署以及美国对叛军政府反对者的支持。间接动机是那些鼓励反美攻击的动机，因为它们具有强大的象征价值。这种区别说明了美国国内正在进行的关于打击国外极端主义的最有效政策工具的政策辩论。与普遍看法相反，我们发现对美国人的攻击与群体意识形态无关。相反，美国军队的部署和军事援助与对美国人的攻击呈正相关，经济渗透也是如此。相反，在对美国有大量出口或以长期存在美国文物为特色的国家的反叛组织不太可能攻击美国人。我们的研究结果强调了美国外交政策中“软实力”导向的价值。对美国有大量出口或以长期存在美国文物为特色的国家的反叛组织不太可能攻击美国人。我们的研究结果强调了美国外交政策中“软实力”导向的价值。对美国有大量出口或以长期存在美国文物为特色的国家的反叛组织不太可能攻击美国人。我们的研究结果强调了美国外交政策中“软实力”导向的价值。