Non-materialism matters (not) : What makes some rebel groups moremilitarily effective than others?

What makes some rebel groups more militarily effective than others? Research on intrastate armed conflicts indicate that the military strength of rebel groups may affect everything from conflict outcome and duration to levels of civilian victimization. However, the same studies often make little effort to understand what constitutes rebel military strength, electing to represent the dynamic relationship between rebel groups and governments using simple, often material measurements. This study seeks to rectify this by borrowing the idea of military effectiveness—the ability to destroy hostile forces while preserving one’s own—from the interstate conflict literature. I argue that rebel militarily effectiveness primarily is determined by non-material rather than material factors. The results of my analysis indicate that this argument is incorrect, as neither strictly non-material nor strictly material factors appear to determine rebel military effectiveness. However, the findings suggest that the ability to control territory is associated with greater rebel military effectiveness, while the ability to mobilize fighters is associated with a decrease in effectiveness. There also appears to be a correlation between high rebel military effectiveness and shorter conflicts. While the findings may not revolutionize our understanding of intrastate armed conflict as a phenomenon, the thesis nevertheless displays the viability of rebel military effectiveness as an alternative to the current forms of measurement.