Arms and the People

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, the American public has shown three different faces with respect to using U.S. military force abroad: full support for the Gulf War, transitory support in Somalia, and no support in Bosnia. An examination of public opinion and media coverage of these cases provides a paradigm of the opportunities and obstacles faced by policymakers in seeking to assess the likely public response to American involvement abroad, as in Haiti. American attitudes toward these three crises suggest that the public will be clearly disposed to act militarily in two situations: if it feels Americas vital interests are at stake, and if American military force can provide humanitarian assistance without becoming engaged in a protracted conflict. The peacekeeper role evokes an ambiguous response, but the public strongly rejects the peacemaker role. The patterns of response suggest that early in a crisis the public will seriously consider the use of force, but that even when it feels the United States has a responsibility to act in its national interest, large percentages (sometimes majorities) will favor no action unless they