IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v58y2021i5p973-985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Symbolic victories and strategic risk

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Jordan

    (Department of Political Science, 14643Baylor University)

Abstract

This article studies the rational side of symbolic victories. It opens with the broad question, why are some battles more significant than others? Extending the literature on bargaining and war, it argues that a belligerent can deliberately increase strategic risk in order to communicate its strength. By increasing the information a battle conveys, the belligerent artificially creates the conditions for a symbolic victory. In short, strategic risk becomes a useful, costly signal. This claim is developed in a formal model in which players choose between more and less dangerous military options. Under most conditions, a symbolic equilibrium exists in which both strong- and weak-type players are able to signal their types after only one round. This equilibrium’s rapid information flow is unusual in the rationalist literature: typically, strong types must wait to signal effectively. The article goes on to establish that, when the prior probability a player is strong is sufficiently small, this symbolic equilibrium uniquely satisfies the intuitive criterion. It then applies the model to two famous episodes from military history, the Doolittle Raid of WWII and the battles of Cannae and Capua of the Second Punic War. For both, it highlights how actors deliberately manipulate strategic risk to communicate with adversaries, allies, and their own publics.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Jordan, 2021. "Symbolic victories and strategic risk," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 973-985, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:58:y:2021:i:5:p:973-985
    DOI: 10.1177/0022343320965666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343320965666
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022343320965666?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langlois, Jean-Pierre P. & Langlois, Catherine C., 2012. "Does the Principle of Convergence Really Hold? War, Uncertainty and the Failure of Bargaining," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 511-536, July.
    2. Robert Powell, 2004. "Bargaining and Learning While Fighting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 344-361, April.
    3. Powell, Robert, 2006. "War as a Commitment Problem," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 169-203, January.
    4. Bennett, D. Scott & Stam, Allan C., 1996. "The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816–1985," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 239-257, June.
    5. Bahar Leventoğlu & Branislav L. Slantchev, 2007. "The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 755-771, October.
    6. Branislav L. Slantchev, 2004. "How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 813-829, October.
    7. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    8. Slantchev, Branislav L., 2003. "The Principle of Convergence in Wartime Negotiations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 621-632, November.
    9. Alastair Smith & Allan C. Stam, 2004. "Bargaining and the Nature of War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(6), pages 783-813, December.
    10. Anat R. Admati & Motty Perry, 1987. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(3), pages 345-364.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanchez-Pages, Santiago, 2009. "Bargaining and Conflict with Incomplete Information," SIRE Discussion Papers 2009-55, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    2. Clara Ponsati & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2012. "Optimism and commitment: an elementary theory of bargaining and war," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 157-179, March.
    3. Eric Min, 2021. "Interstate War Battle dataset (1823–2003)," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(2), pages 294-303, March.
    4. Clayton Thyne, 2017. "The impact of coups d’état on civil war duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 287-307, May.
    5. Nakao, Keisuke, 2017. "Denial vs. Punishment: Strategies Shape War, but War Itself Affects Strategies," MPRA Paper 81418, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Keisuke Nakao, 2022. "Denial and punishment in war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 166-179, March.
    7. Nakao, Keisuke, 2019. "Moving Forward vs. Inflicting Costs in a Random-Walk Model of War," MPRA Paper 96071, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Marco Nilsson, 2018. "Causal beliefs and war termination," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 55(1), pages 94-106, January.
    9. Paul F. Diehl, 2006. "Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics Over Time," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(3), pages 199-210, July.
    10. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    12. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2016. "Centers of gravity and war outcomes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(4), pages 361-380, September.
    13. Constantin Ruhe, 2021. "Impeding fatal violence through third-party diplomacy: The effect of mediation on conflict intensity," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 687-701, July.
    14. Zachary C. Shirkey, 2020. "Which wars spread? Commitment problems and military intervention," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(2), pages 133-151, March.
    15. Darren Filson & Suzanne Werner, 2007. "The Dynamics of Bargaining and War," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 31-50, January.
    16. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, September.
    17. Shawna K. Metzger, 2017. "Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 308-329, May.
    18. Philip Arena, 2015. "Crisis bargaining, domestic opposition, and tragic wars," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(1), pages 108-131, January.
    19. Helios Herrera & Massimo Morelli & Salvatore Nunnari, 2022. "A Theory of Power Wars," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-30, January.
    20. Yuleng Zeng, 2021. "Biding time versus timely retreat: Asymmetric dependence, issue salience, and conflict duration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 719-733, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:58:y:2021:i:5:p:973-985. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.