Search

Begin New Search Topic Politics Content Type Working Paper Publishing Institution Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies

1. A People of War or Peace? Americans' Attitudes Towards the Use of Military Force Abroad in Terrorist and Conflict Situations

Author:
Emanuel Boussios
Publication Date:
05-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
This exploratory research presents the results of a March 2011survey of a random sample of 217 adults on their attitudes towards the use of force as a foreign policy alternative. This research note examines the social characteristics of those people who are more or less likely to support intervening in hypothetical foreign conflicts in situations in which the United States' national interests may or may not be at stake. The research reported here was aimed at answering several questions including: are there some demographic groups who are more likely to support intervening in foreign conflicts even when U.S. national interests are not necessarily at stake? I find that dispositional preferences interact with opinion about the geopolitical situation to determine whether military force is an acceptable option. The survey incorporates various foreign pol icy and terrorist scenarios. Findings include the following: I support the findings of others in that Democrats, liberals, and women are less likely to support military force as a foreign policy option. Using multivariate regression analysis it was also found that certain respondent dispositions, such as "value placed on human life," were more likely to constrain policy preferences. I also find conflicting support for the casualty hypothesis. In general the more casualties mentioned in a scenario the les s likely Americans are to support the use of force, with a notable exception here among "hawks". I also find this is true for civilian casualties.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States and America

2. The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny Not A Pound

Author:
Jack Snyder and Erica Borghard
Publication Date:
12-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
A large literature in political science takes for granted that democratic leaders would pay substantial domestic political costs for failing to carry out the public threats they make in international crises, and consequently that making threats substantially enhances their leverage in crisis bargaining. And yet proponents of this audience costs theory have presented very little evidence that this causal mechanism actually operates in real—as opposed to simulated—crises. We look for such evidence in post-1945 crises and find hardly any. Audience cost mechanisms are rare because (1) leaders see unambiguous committing threats as imprudent, (2) domestic audiences care more about policy substance than about consistency between the leader's words and deeds, (3) domestic audiences care about their country's reputation for resolve and national honor independently of whether the leader has issued an explicit threat, and (4) authoritarian targets of democratic threats do not perceive audience costs dynamics in the same way that audience costs theorists do. We found domestic audience costs only as secondary mechanisms in a few cases where the public already had hawkish preferences before any threats were made.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Government, Politics, Political Theory, and Public Opinion

3. Reputation and War: Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict

Author:
Barbara F. Walter
Publication Date:
04-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
Between 1940 and 1996, governments were seventy percent less likely to negotiate with rebels seeking independence or greater territorial autonomy than with rebels seeking any other goal. Current theories suggest that this is due to the economic, strategic, or psychological value of territory under dispute. I argue that a government's decision to negotiate has more to do with the signal the government wishes to send to future challengers than with any specific characteristics of the land in question. If the government believes it could face multiple separatist challenges in the future, it will invest in a reputation for toughness now rather than face additional challengers down the road. If the government knows it will face such a challenge only once, there is less reason to invest in a reputation and negotiation is likely to result. An analysis of all self-determination movements between 1940 and 2000 demonstrates that governments of multiethnic states are far less likely to negotiate than are governments that preside over more homogenous populations.
Topic:
Security, Peace Studies, and Politics
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Democracy and Military Intervention: Challenges and Opportunities

Author:
Daniel Byman
Publication Date:
02-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
The Bush administration entered office skeptical of using the U.S. military to build democracy. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Advisor, wrote before the election that: "The President must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society." Despite this skepticism, policing, building a civilian society, and other tasks inherent to democratization were quickly thrust upon the Bush administration. Even before the fall of the Taliban, the United States and its allies began trying to shape a new government to take power in Kabul. And today, as the United States and its allies move to topple Saddam's regime, they are grappling with how to create a stable and democratic future for Iraq.
Topic:
Security, Government, Peace Studies, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Taliban, and Kabul

5. Does Conflict Beget Conflict? Explaining Recurrent Civil War

Author:
Barbara F. Walter
Publication Date:
06-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
This article seeks to explain why some countries experience recurring civil war while others do not. It argues that renewed war has less to do with the attributes of a previous war, as many people have argued, and more to do with the incentives individual citizens have to join rebel groups at any given point in time. Civil wars will have little chance to get off the ground unless individual farmers, shopkeepers, and workers choose to enlist in the rebel armies that are necessary to pursue a war, and enlistment is likely to be attractive when two conditions hold: the status quo for the average citizen is perceived to be worse than the possibility of death in combat, and there is no non-violent outlet for political change. An analysis of all civil wars ending between 1945 and 1996 suggests that improvements in basic living conditions and in the average person's access to political participation have a significant negative effect on the likelihood of renewed war. Countries that are able to increase the economic well-being of their citizenry, and create a more open political system are less likely to experience multiple civil wars regardless of what happened in a previous conflict.
Topic:
Security, Peace Studies, and Politics
Political Geography:
Global Focus