Draining the Sea: Counterinsurgency as an Instrument of Genocide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All cases of genocide in the modern era feature counterinsurgency in some capacity. Often, genocidal acts are justified as counterinsurgency, and counterinsurgency doctrines and tactics are employed to carry out many genocides. While genocides often have international dimensions, they are mostly carried out within the context of intrastate armed conflicts, almost all of which can be characterized as counterinsurgency. In this article, I expand upon Martin Shaw's model of Genocide as War by exploring the theoretical linkages between counterinsurgency and genocide to demonstrate where counterinsurgency fits into the genocide process. Two specific linkages are drawn to show how counterinsurgency complements the genocide process: total transformation of society through militarization, and exploitation of the asymmetries of power between the opposing groups. The relationship between counterinsurgency and genocide is not constructed as a causal one, but recursive (i.e., mutually reinforcing). By examining the Rwandan and Guatemalan Genocides, I demonstrate how genocide is operationalized through counterinsurgency in both cases. I conclude by providing areas for further investigation toward a unifying theory between the scholarships on genocide and counterinsurgency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it