From the Korean War to the conflict in Iraq, this book examines the ways in which the American public decides whether to support the use of military force. Contrary to the conventional view, it demonstrates that the public does not respond reflexively and solely to the number of casualties in a conflict.
The book explores the longstanding divide between civilian and military perspectives in U.S. foreign policy, particularly during the Iraq invasion debate. It highlights the reluctance of military leaders to engage in conflict and the civilian hawks pushing for action, alongside public apprehension about war casualties. This dynamic is presented as a recurring theme in American history, influencing decisions since 1816. The new afterword by Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi connects these historical patterns to the ongoing Iraq war, emphasizing their impact on current policy.
Challenging mainstream security studies, this book critiques realist theories of crisis bargaining by exploring how normative standards shape state behavior in security conflicts. It investigates the creation of bilateral norms in resolving disputes and analyzes their impact on future interactions regarding similar issues. This approach offers a fresh perspective on the dynamics of international relations and the importance of norms in conflict resolution.