{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01627670396744659, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008138351983723296, 'mean_word_length': 5.348387096774194, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Too Many Cooks: Coalitions and the Outcome of Interstate War

One quarter of all interstate conflicts are multilateral, with the majority of these having a coalition of states fighting on at least one side. However, current theories of war outcome are dominated by dyadic explanations which ignore the contribution of coalitions. While popular opinion views coalitions as ineffective in waging war, these criticisms overlook many advantages to fighting as part of a coalition. While coalitions often do have problems, the strengths of fighting together outweigh the cost, making coalitions more likely to win wars. Empirical examination of war outcomes between 1816 and 1997 confirms this hypothesis; coalitions are almost three times more likely to win the wars they fight when compared to states fighting outside of a coalition. Further, as command and control becomes more centralized, allowing greater coordination between coalition members, the odds of victory greatly increase.