Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The central argument is that co-optation creates a structural tension between the state's demand for actionable intelligence and the militias' need to preserve the trust of the communities from which they are drawn. When co-optation is deep, intelligence flows improve but civilian protection deteriorates as militias become targets and lose their protective ambiguity. When co-optation is shallow, civilian protection is preserved but intelligence remains thin and unreliable. It proposes a mechanism-centred framework that identifies the conditions under which co-optation can improve both intelligence and protection, and the conditions under which the trade-off is unavoidable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sawadogo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: