Stathis N. Kalyvas. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge University Press, 2007.Pp 485. $

The author ensures his words translate into meaning and converts meaning into thoughts. In turn, the thoughts spin in the head of the reader as he tries to find a footing on the exemplary book. The perspectives of the author come out crispy clear; one can almost hear the author whisper in the ear of the reader as he reveals his perceptions. Stathis does not play around words. Instead, he weaves them around to explain the rationality behind the violence experienced in civil war. Decoupling violence and civil war, he lays bare the factors that fuel the two entities that seem to be Siamese twins. Yet, the entities are contrasting faces of the same coin.

 

Summary of the book

The book is interesting, gives, and takes a flexible turn as the author discusses and challenges the obvious analysis of violence during civil wars as illogical and without a basis. In all the chapters of the book, Stathis claims that violence in a civil war follows a certain criteria. Chaos does not just occur because of a situation, in this case civil war but specific reasons push the strings. Moreover, the underlying reasons go ahead to solve the controversies that surround civil war. For instance, in a civil war, one village community burns down and the neighboring one survives to see another day with no sign of brutality. In addition, the underlying reasons answer another puzzle. The specifics that make a civil war are more violent and its situation sensitive as compared to an external war. Alternatively, the book reveals the alliances formed during a civil war.

 

Main argument

According to Stathis, in the event of a civil war, there must be macro   and micro reasons that when identified and untangled can solve the whole situation and bring about peace. The author’s key argument centers on the alliances various factions form during the civil war. The conflicting parties dictate the direction of a civil war. Hence, their values make or break the civil war. This should not conflict or cause a confusion with the genesis of a civil war but the ignition of violence that leaves a trail of dead bodies in its wake after the civil war has already come into place.

A vital idea that the author forwards to the public is the separation and evaluation of civil war with other factors other than the violence that takes all of the attention from the main issues that fuel violence and disunity. By isolating violence, kalyas gets the chance to investigate violent practices keenly such as usage of crude weapons .Obviously, civil wars are bloody events, but the approach of separating violence from other factors gives the chance to distinguish and place other factors into context that go unseen due the blind emphasis placed on violence.

If everything goes unnoticed in the book, one thing stands out. Competitors in a civil war want power and total control of the whole territory regardless of whether the majority want it or not. To win the favor of the majority people, the combatants try to generate benefits for people who are willing to collaborate with them. In fact, they assure retaliation to people who resist or join other camps. Amid all these situations, opportunities and practical chances give a loophole for the struggle of power and control in the territory. The only resolve is fighting among themselves. This explanation falls in line with the stages of civil war. First, general violence erupts and affects everyone. After the negotiations between the conflicting parties, the war chooses a side   and violence comes only to people who did not toe the line.

The book entails traits of violence during a civil war amid the conflicting interests. The writer proposes that interests are responsible for differentiating combatants and noncombatants in the civil war. For instance, an innocent individual who does not support any side can lose their life while the perpetrator spares another’s life due to interest. The combatants want to remain only with people who support their interests. Thus, at later stages of civil war there is no indiscriminate killing of people in order to protect the interest of combatants. Therefore, it is safe to say that lack of a pattern violence is not productive in a civil war.

Stathis takes a unique perspective while discussing the mechanism that propels violence in a civil war setting. The mechanism pushes aside irrational feelings or anger. Ideology is neither a basis for arguing out civil war. Kalyva carries out a groundbreaking examination in the history of civil wars. As explained above, there is a contrast between the mechanism of violence and the results. Other previous studies focus on studying the civil war based on outcomes but not Stathis. The isolation of violence gives chance for the dissection of the topic. In fact, violence depends on many other things and it is a dependent variable. Thus, after everything settles and decided, the outcome is violence. Perpetrators of violence are politicians and civilians with vested interests in a specific location.

After violence and interests, the author crosses over to the nitty gritty details that go into planning a civil war. The planning should be in line with interest of the combatants and protect their interests at the same time. The thought-provoking part comes out in safeguarding interest and win some power that comes with securing the location. It is at this particular juncture that people form organizations filled with informants who will help in identifying areas on the opposing sides    and select a method of eliminating them.

The author uses Greece to illustrate some of his points. He states that although Greece had a civil war, it involved an external interest. He goes further to a make a convincing instance that reveals the patterns of violence and territories affected by the civil war to drive his point home. This is the heart of the book as it analyses the example and links it to his own hypothesis.

In short, Kalyva argues that there is more to civil war than meets the eyes. A Civil war changes the manner of rule of power in a basic way. Interest varies from one region to another between two or more rivals. Borders drawn based on interest of the perpetrators. The author shed light on unique aspects mentioned above and how they culminate to form a civil war. The author does good job of informing through by using rhetoric to challenge, educate, sensitize and correct past mistakes that hid in plain sight.