Description
Book SynopsisAmerica's debate over whether and how to invade Iraq clustered into civilian versus military camps. This book shows that this civilian-military argument - which has characterized earlier debates over Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo - is typical, not exceptional. It traces these themes through the first two years of the Iraq war.
Trade Review"[A] highly statistical but thankfully lucid study... [The authors] find that non-veteran civilian elites are more likely to advocate the use of force than either military elites or civilian leaders with military experience... The pattern holds historically. The authors consider a total of 111 instances from 1816 to 1992."--Chronicle of Higher Education "Feaver and Gelpi offer important insights into the character of civil-military relations in the U.S. and into its effects on the nature of U.S. foreign policy... [A]n important work whose findings have wide-ranging policy implications."--Spencer D. Bakich, Virginia Quarterly Review "Feaver and Gelpi's intriguing and well-executed study provides a welcome contribution to scholarship in this area. In it, the authors address a subset of provocative issues within the broader study of American civil-military relations."--Risa A. Brooks, Review of Politics
Table of ContentsLIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vii PREFACE xi CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO The Civil-Military Opinion Gap over the Use of Force 21 CHAPTER THREE The Impact of Elite Veterans on American Decisions to Use Force 64 CHAPTER FOUR Casualty Sensitivity and Civil-Military Relations 95 CHAPTER FIVE Exploring the Determinants of Casualty Sensitivity 149 CHAPTER SIX Conclusion 184 REFERENCES 215 NAME INDEX 229 SUBJECT INDEX 233
