SpringerLink
Log in

Polarization, Casualty Sensitivity, and Military Operations: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Polarization and US Foreign Policy

  • 17 Accesses

Abstract

Does political polarization impact decisions to go to war? This chapter explores how differences in casualty sensitivity by political party in the United States may present different incentives to wartime leaders. Using three survey experiments, I assess the relationship between party, ideology, casualty sensitivity, and support for war. Results indicate that conservatives are less likely to change their support in response to increases in casualties, while liberals are much more likely to be sensitive to casualties. Further, this result appears to be attributable to ideology, as opposed to partisan preference, generating different incentives regarding war strategy by political party. As polarization increases, these trends are likely to become more pronounced, with significant implications for when and how states fight wars.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 119.83
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 139.09
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldrich, J., Sullivan, J., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz Before a Blind Audience?’. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, M., & Groeling, T. (2009). War Stories: The Causes and Consequences of Public Views of War. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. (2009). In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blankshain, J., Cohn, L., & Kriner, D. (2021). Citizen-Soldiers: Mobilization, Cost Perceptions, & Support for Military Action. Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher, W. A., III, & Cobb, M. (2006). Echoes of Vietnam? Casualty Framing and Public Perceptions of Success and Failure in Iraq. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(6), 831–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbach, D. (2019). Partisan Dimensions of Confidence in the U.S. Military, 1973–2016. Armed Forces & Society, 45(2), 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J., Jenkins, J., Rohde, D., & Souva, M. (2001). The Impact of National Tides and District-Level Effects on Electoral Outcomes: The US Congressional Elections of 1962–63. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 887–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaet, C. J., & J. Scott. 2006. Treaty-Making and Partisan Politics: Arms Control and the U.S. Senate, 1960–2001. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2(2): 177–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desch, M. (2001). Explaining the Gap: Vietnam, the Republicanization of the South, and the End of the Mass Army. In P. Feaver & R. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and Citizens: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security (pp. 289–324). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiGregorio, N. (2018). Draft Time: This Is Why and How American Should Have Compulsory Military Service. The National Interest, August 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg, R. (2006). Victory Has Many Friends: U.S. Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force, 1981–2005. International Security, 30(1), 140–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazal, T. (2021). Life and Limb: New Estimates of Casualty Aversion in the United States. International Studies Quarterly, 65(1), 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foyle, D. (2004). Leading the Public to War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration’s Decision to go to War in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(3), 269–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S. (1997). Strategic Assessment in War. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S. (2004). Making the International Local: The Terrorist Attack on the USS Cole, Local Casualties, and Media Coverage. Political Communication, 21(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S. (2008a). The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S. (2008b). Ties to the Dead: Connections to Iraq War and 9/11 Casualties and Presidential Approval. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 690–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., & Segura, G. (1998). War, Casualties, and Public Opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(3), 278–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., & Segura, G. (2000). Race, Opinion, and Casualties in the Vietnam War. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 115–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., & Segura, G. (2005). A General Theory of War Casualties and Public Opinion. Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., & Segura, G. (2008). All Politics Are Still Local: The Iraq War and the 2006 Midterms. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(1), 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., & Segura, G. (2021). Costly Calculations: A Theory of War, Casualties, and Politics. Cambridge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, S., Segura, G., & Barratt, B. (2004). Casualties, Positions and Senate Elections in the Vietnam War. Political Research Quarterly, 53(3), 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C., & Feaver, P. (2005). Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., & Reifler, J. (2005). Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq. International Security, 30(3), 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., & Reifler, J. (2009). Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldgeier, J., & Saunders, E. (2018). The Unconstrained Presidency: Checks and Balances Eroded Long Before Trump. Foreign Affairs, 97(5), 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gries, P. (2014). The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. (1996). Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homan, P. (2016). Getting to 67: The Post-Cold War Politics of Arms Control. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, W., & Pevehouse, J. (2005). Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force. International Organization, 59(1), 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, H. (2020). The Curious Case of Black Conservatives: Construct Validity and the 7-point Liberal-Conservative Scale. Working Paper. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3602209

  • Jentleson, B. (1992). The Pretty Prudent Public Post Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force. International Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karol, D., & Miguel, E. (2007). Iraq War Casualties and the 2004 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kertzer, J., & Zeitzoff, T. (2017). A Bottom-Up Theory of Public Opinion About Foreign Policy. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein. E. (2020). Why We’re Polarized. Avid Reader Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, R., & Ralston, R. (2020). Civilian Control of the Military is a Partisan Issue. Foreign Affairs, July 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, R., Ralston, R., & Rapport, A. (2021). No Right to be Wrong: What Americans Think About Civil-Military Relations. Perspectives on Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, S. (2018). Taxing Wars: The American Way of War Finance and the Decline of Democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriner, D., & Shen, F. (2021). The Casualty Gap: The Causes and Consequences of American Wartime Inequalities. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E. (1996) “Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations.” : RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2015). The Politics of Military Operations. Stanford University PhD Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2019). Electoral Politics, Party Polarization, and Arms Control: New START in Historical Perspective. Orbis, 63(4), 545–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibert, H., & Golby, J. (2017). Midlife Crisis? The All-Volunteer Force at 40. Armed Forces & Society, 43(1), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinov, N., Nomikos, W., & Robbins, J. (2015). Does Electoral Proximity Affect Security Policy? Journal of Politics, 77(3), 762–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattis, J., & Schake, K. (2015). Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military. Hoover Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milstein, J., & Mitchell, W. (1968). Dynamics of the Vietnam Conflict: A Quantitative Analysis and Computer Simulation (p. 10). Peace Research Society (International) Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, W. (2001). A Will to Measure. Parameters, 31(3), 134–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrick, R. (2022). The reputational consequences of polarization for American foreign policy: evidence from the US-UK bilateral relationship. International Politics, 59, 1004–1027

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. (2020). Presidents, Politics, and Military Strategy: Electoral Constraints During the Iraq War. International Security, 44(3), 163–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, D., & Stam, A. (2002). Democracies at War. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. (2018). Danger Close: Military Politicization and Elite Credibility. Stanford University Ph.D. Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogin, J. (2012). McChrystal: Time to Bring Back the Draft. Foreign Policy, July 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, K. (2017). The Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy. The Washington Quarterly, 40(4), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voeten, E., & Brewer, P. (2006). Public Opinion, the War in Iraq and Presidential Accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(6), 809–830.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of National Security and Strategy, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA, USA

    Carrie A. Lee

Authors
  1. Carrie A. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carrie A. Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

    Gordon M. Friedrichs

  2. American University, Washington, DC, USA

    Jordan Tama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lee, C.A. (2024). Polarization, Casualty Sensitivity, and Military Operations: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. In: Friedrichs, G.M., Tama, J. (eds) Polarization and US Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58618-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation