Abstract:This book overthrows the commonly held thesis that domestic elites are the primary influence drivers behind mass public opinion during international conflict. The exercise in self-restraint to show a united front in international relations has been the conventional wisdom for nearly 70 years in U.S. foreign policy relations. Michigan Republican Arthur Vandenberg, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in postwar 1947, called on his Senate colleagues to lend their support for the Truman Doctrine efforts to challenge Soviet imperialism overseas and said, “we must stop partisan politics at the water's edge.” That conventional wisdom was in dramatic form in Washington from just after Labor Day 2002 through 19 March 2003 when Democratic Party opposition to the Bush-Cheney military response to Iraq was all but on silent mode. Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained the post-Labor Day timing of the strategic communications campaign, known as the White House Iraq Group (aka White House Information Group or WHIG), this way: “From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August” (Bumiller, 2002). “A centerpiece of the strategy, White House officials said, is to use Mr. Bush's speech on 11 Sept. to help move Americans toward support of action against Iraq, which could come early next year.” Couching the Iraq military invasion in the rally-round-the-flag syndrome of post-September 11, the bipartisan support for a military option against Iraq caught on in short order and with little notable dissent. On 11 October 2002, a three-quarter majority of the Senate, including many Democrats (77-23), notably 2008 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. This united front created an information vacuum that was filled by foreign elite voices opposed to the Bush administration in substance or procedure; even kingpins in the Senate were given a stage that did not reverberate. The book devotes an entire chapter, “Byrd Gets No Word,” to Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and his eloquent, but futile, quest to amplify Democratic Party dissent: “Listen. You can hear a pin drop” (p. 51). An interesting footnote is that Hayes and Guardino show that the Department of Defense attempt to use military analysts to make the case for war in Iraq “did not appear to pay significant dividends for the Bush Administration, at least on network television before the war” (p. 40).

External Threats and Military Intervention: The United States and the Caribbean Basin

America'S Military Interventionism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation

United States Intervention and the Following Hegemony in Cuba and Chile: A Critical Appraisal

Do Major-Power Interventions Encourage the Onset of Civil Conflict? A Structural Analysis

Foreign Military Intervention and Cabinet Government Stability

Intervention in American Diplomatic History

Inward Bound: Domestic Institutions and Military Conflicts

External Threats, Political Turnover and Fiscal Capacity

The Democratic Politics of Military Interventions

A Supply and Demand Theory of US Military Policy

Peace at Home, Conflict Abroad: Government Ideology, Mission Type, and Parliamentary Support for Military Interventions

Conflict Externalization and the Quest for Peace: Theory and Case Evidence from Colombia

Why Governments Have Their Troops Trained Abroad: Evidence from Latin America

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: Interests and Consequences

American Hegemony Comes Home

Empirical Support for Systemic and Dyadic Explanations of International Conflict

¿Nuevo imperio, viejo patio trasero? Los Estados Unidos, América Latina y la guerra en Irak

Conflict or Cooperation: A Survival Analysis of the Relationship between Regional Trade Agreements and Military Conflict

Influence from Abroad: Foreign Voices, the Media and U.S. Public Opinion

A Theory of External Wars and European Parliaments

Preventing Plunder: Military Technology, Capital Accumulation, and Economic Growth