Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns

Johnston, Patrick B.·2012·International Security

Abstract

Is killing or capturing insurgent leaders an effective tactic? Previous research on interstate war and counterterrorism has suggested that targeting enemy leaders does not work. Most studies of the efficacy of leadership decapitation, however, have relied on unsystematic evidence and poor research design. An analysis based on fresh evidence and a new research design indicates the opposite relationship and yields four key findings. First, campaigns are more likely to end quickly when counterinsurgents successfully target enemy leaders. Second, counterinsurgents who capture or kill insurgent leaders are significantly more likely to defeat insurgencies than those who fail to capture or kill such leaders. Third, the intensity of a conflict is likelier to decrease following the successful removal of an enemy leader than it is after a failed attempt. Fourth, insurgent attacks are more likely to decrease after successful leadership decapitations than after failed attempts. Additional analysis suggests that these findings are attributable to successful leadership decapitation, and that the relationship between decapitation and campaign success holds across different types of insurgencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/isec_a_00076

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. 10.1162/016366005774859698 · doi:10.1162/016366005774859698
  2. 10.1080/1057610X.2011.531456 · doi:10.1080/1057610x.2011.531456
  3. Mannes, 2008, Journal of International Policy Solutions, 9, 43
  4. Fearon James D., 2008, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, 39
  5. 10.2307/2756507 · doi:10.2307/2756507
  6. 10.1162/016366003765609589 · doi:10.1162/016366003765609589
  7. 10.1080/10576100903582543 · doi:10.1080/10576100903582543
  8. 2008, Foreign Affairs, 87, 133
  9. Pancho, 1996, Oxford University, 171
  10. 2000, International Security, 25, 112
  11. Cornell Svante, 2000, U.K.: Curzon, 209
  12. 10.1162/isec.2007.31.3.107 · doi:10.1162/isec.2007.31.3.107
  13. 10.1198/07350010152472571 · DOI · Paper page
  14. . See Aamer Madhani, “Special Ops Nominee Defends Night Raids in Afghan War,” National Journal, June28,2011,
  15. Flynn Michael T., 2008, Joint Forces Quarterly, 50, 57

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Johnston, P. B.
Venue
International Security
Published
2012-04
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
47-79
ISSN
  • 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4804
OpenAlex
W1970695761
Cited by
281
References
41
FWCI
113.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/isec_a_00076
The paper
Johnston, P. B. (2012). Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns. International Security. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00076

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.