Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance

Transcription

Foreign Policy Analysis (2010) 6, 191–215
Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance
Cohesion: Why Public Opinion Hardly
Matters for NATO-led Operations in
Afghanistan
Sarah Kreps
Cornell University
Despite the increasing popularity of fighting wars through multilateral
coalitions, scholars have largely been silent on the question of how public opinion in member states affects alliance cohesion. This article
assesses public opinion data for states contributing to operations in
Afghanistan. It finds that despite the unpopularity of the war, leaders
have largely bucked public opinion and neither reduced nor withdrawn
troops from NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Theoretical expectations about international cooperation and evidence from case studies
point to elite consensus as the reason why leaders are not running for
the exits in Afghanistan when their publics would prefer that they do.
As the article shows, operating through a formal institution such as
NATO creates systemic incentives for sustained international cooperation. The result is that elite consensus inoculates leaders from electoral
punishment and gives states’ commitments to Afghanistan a ‘‘stickiness’’ that defies negative public opinion. A formal alliance such as
NATO may therefore create more policy constraints than an ad hoc
coalition but also increase the costs of defection and confer a degree of
staying power that is unexpected given the adverse public opinion environment.
Are leaders responsive to public opinion when they make decisions about war? Does
variation in public opinion within a multilateral coalition—in which the publics
of some coalition members are more supportive of the war than others—affect
alliance cohesion? This article addresses those questions by assessing public
opinion data for NATO member states contributing to operations in Afghanistan
and tracing the effect of public support on whether states withdraw deployed
forces before the end of hostilities, a key measure of alliance cohesion.1
Despite low levels of public support especially in non-American troop contributing countries, this analysis shows that leaders have actually bucked hostile public opinion and by and large neither reduced nor withdrawn their troops from
Afghanistan. On the contrary, they have generally increased their troop numbers
and gradually lifted restrictions on how troops can be used, which presents a
puzzle: why are leaders of all political stripes and in almost all countries willing
1
By alliance cohesion, I refer to the degree of convergence among member states’ commitments to the alliance. The key indicator is whether states defect—remove or reduce troops—prior to the end of hostilities. See
Weitsman (2003:85, 2004:24).
2010 International Studies Association
192
Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance Cohesion
to risk electoral backlash by increasing the commitment of their countries’
troops when the vast majority of their electorates prefer the opposite?
The reason, I argue, is that elite consensus has limited the impact of public
opinion. In almost all major troop-contributing countries, the major political
parties have had little daylight among their views on whether to maintain their
country’s commitments to NATO-led operations. Elite consensus has not had a
top–down impact on public opinion, however, as prevailing views in the public
opinion literature might expect; the public remains deeply skeptical of operations in Afghanistan. But it has had the effect of inoculating the leadership from
electoral punishment. Since the opposition has a similar stand, leaders are
thereby less concerned about being outflanked or losing votes to competitors
and can therefore continue the unpopular Afghanistan deployment.
That elites are largely unified on an issue of deep unpopularity is surprising
given the strong electoral incentives for opportunism by opposition groups. As
Kenneth Schultz (1998:831) writes, ‘‘political parties value holding office and
therefore choose strategies designed to maximize their probability of election.’’
Since foreign policy positions affect voter appeal and political office is generally
a zero-sum game, we might expect opposition parties to choose a public strategy
that would appeal to voters who disapprove of the government’s preference on a
major issue of foreign policy. Accordingly, opposition groups would diverge from
the government’s policy and advocate immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, a
strategy consistent with public preferences.
This domestic-level view ignores the systemic pressures to cooperate, however.
Participating under the banner of NATO is as close to an ideal type iterated
game as there is in security cooperation. Axelrod and Keohane (1985:232) note
that to maximize the likelihood of cooperation, ‘‘actors [have] to expect that
their relationships will continue over an indefinite period of time’’—that there
are long time horizons and regularized, iterated interactions. NATO’s extended
history of security benefits and credible promise of future cooperation casts a
long shadow of the future in a way that participation in ad hoc coalitions does
not. Defection is unlikely not just because of the high benefits for cooperation
but also the equally high costs of defection: earning a reputation as a defector
that precludes the actor from future cooperation benefits (Keohane 1984:94,
106). The result of these systemic factors is that elites are sensitive to the costs of
international defection and converge around a commitment to international
cooperation, which reduces the electoral and foreign policy effects of public
opinion. This argument challenges the widely held belief that governments and
opposition groups are responsive primarily to domestic preferences (Page and
Shapiro 1983) by showing that elites’ preferences are multidimensional; in addition to domestic preferences, they take into account systemic-level incentives that
can prove more persuasive.
This article proceeds as follows. It begins with a brief discussion of whether
and why public opinion is thought to matter in foreign policy generally. It
turns to the question of alliance cohesion in international conflict, putting the
Afghanistan campaign in context and drawing the theoretical connection
between the opinion of the coalition members’ domestic audiences and the
success of multilateral operations. It then examines public opinion data for
individual troop contributing countries as well as cross-national variation in
support over time to uncover the macro-level trends in support. Showing that
public opinion has not had the expected impact on troop commitments, the
article then advances an argument of systemic incentives for cooperation, elite
consensus, and alliance cohesion. Next, the paper turns to brief case studies of
major troop contributing states in Afghanistan—Germany, Canada, France,
and Italy—to trace the cause and consequence of elite consensus on alliance
commitments. It concludes by considering alternative explanations for state
Sarah Kreps
193
cooperation and discussing implications for alliance durability and the conduct
of multilateral operations.
Public Opinion and Alliance Cohesion
In early studies of public opinion, scholars looked askance at the public’s understanding of international events. Not only was the public largely uninformed, but
it was capricious, often changing its mood based on a superficial understanding
of events. As a result, according to this realist argument (Lippmann 1925;
Almond 1956), policymakers often deemed it wise to dismiss public opinion altogether, instead relying on their own judgments rather than the vagaries of public
opinion.
Recent public opinion research has largely consigned this early consensus to
the dustbin of intellectual history. Rather, it has put considerable faith in the
assertion that ‘‘the foreign policies of American presidents—and democratic
leaders more generally—have been influenced by their understanding of the
public’s foreign policy views’’ (Aldrich, Gelpi, Feaver, Reifler, and Thompson
Sharp 2006:496). The logic is obvious and persuasive: leaders want to stay in
office, and carrying out an unpopular war decreases their electoral longevity (Bueno de Mesquita and Siverson 1995). Thus, ‘‘an unfavorable public opinion environment ultimately constrains the range of politically acceptable policies’’
(Larson and Savych 2005:xvii); specifically, public support for withdrawing forces
should make it politically unpalatable for leaders to maintain unpopular deployments. Plummeting public support for American operations in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia is thought to contributed heavily to decisions to withdraw
from these engagements.
Having once been the subject of heated debate, the connection between public opinion and foreign policy decisions is now virtually taken for granted.
Appearing to have resolved that long-time debate (Foster 1983; Holsti 1992),
recent public opinion research has moved to the assessment of whether the public has a consistent set of preferences, such as whether support for military force
is contingent on the nature of the intervention (principle policy objective), sensitive to casualties, realist in nature, or inclined toward multilateral interventions
(Jentleson and Britton 1998; Eichenberg 2005; Berinsky and Druckman 2007;
Gelpi et al. 2005–06; Drezner 2008). Extending public opinion research in the
direction of understanding public preferences may be productive if the connection between public views and democratic leaders’ decisions is indeed solid.
While the linkage between public preferences and elite foreign policy choices
has appeared credible for the United States, studies to confirm that this logic
holds beyond the United States have been limited.2 It seems plausible that the
logic would apply to all democracies in which electoral accountability gives constituents a way to register their disapproval of a particular foreign policy.3 Nonetheless, the richness of research that points to an American style of war, or a
certain exceptionalism that makes American foreign policies distinctive suggests
some variation in the sensitivity of different democracies to public preferences
(Lipset 1997; Wilson 2007). Even if dynamics within the United States were generalizable to other democracies, this would not necessarily address possible interaction effects within multilateral coalitions or alliances that have characterized
many recent military interventions. Public opinion effects within a multilateral
entity—whether a coalition or an alliance—may not be additive, but rather may
interact with each other either favorably or unfavorably (Walt 1997).
2
Exceptions to the US-centric studies include Lai and Reiter (2005); Arian (1995); Telhami (1993).
Thomas Risse-Kappen (1991) argues that ‘‘the patterns of mass public opinion in the United States, Western
Europe, and Japan are more or less similar.’’
3
194
That the effect of public opinion in a multilateral setting has not been studied
is a notable oversight given the frequency with which interventions have been
fought as multilateral coalitions or alliances in the post-Cold War. The 1990–91
Gulf War had at least 23 state contributors to the war, Kosovo had 19 NATO participants, the Iraq War coalition had 47 states,4 and the ongoing NATO operation in Afghanistan has contributions from 40 states. This article attempts to fill
that theoretical and empirical gap by examining the most recent of those
multilateral settings to understand better the connection between public opinion, foreign policy decisions, and alliance cohesion.
As the public opinion data from Afghanistan shows, the revisionist view of public
opinion—that public opinion has a bottom–up effect on foreign policies5—may
be in need of a revision. In the United States, a majority of Americans have
supported operations in Afghanistan, creating few electoral liabilities for elite
support of continued operations. The United States is the exception, however.
In every other troop contributing state, the popularity of operations in Afghanistan falls well below a majority, which should introduce the prospect of electoral costs for leaders who maintain their commitments to operations in
Afghanistan. Despite unpopularity at home, however, states have tended to
increase rather than reduce their states’ commitments to military operations.
The next section assesses the data on intra-alliance support for military operations in more detail.
Assessing Support for the Use of Force in Afghanistan
During the peak of the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan was referred to as ‘‘The
Forgotten War’’ (Sennott 2006). Once American resources and the international
media turned its focus to the Middle East in the autumn of 2002, there was
remarkably little attention on events in Afghanistan. As an indication, a database
of public opinion polls yields over 1,000 matching questions for Iraq from March
2003 to December 2008 compared to 275 for Afghanistan from September 2001
to December 2009.6 As casualties in Afghanistan began to rise in 2006, however,
so did polling frequency. Because of the dearth of polling in the early years of
the war and the shift in later years, this analysis focuses on public opinion data
beginning in late 2006.
To assess the public’s view on troop commitments in Afghanistan, I accessed
polls through several sources, including Angus Reid Global Monitor, the Polling
Report, Polling the Nations, and a number of newspapers. From these sources, I
selected polls that (i) were conducted in NATO member states that contribute
ground forces involved in combat operations,7 and (ii) asked the public about
support for continued, future, or ongoing military force.8
As the empirical evidence shows, NATO members’ commitment to the war has
almost uniformly increased in spite of varying—but generally declining—levels of
support for the war across countries. Table 1 summarizes the cross-national public opinion data for NATO members in Afghanistan. The table shows the mean
public support for the war in each country, number of troop contributions, fatalities, and number of polls generated. The final column classifies the member
4
Not all of these states contributed troops.
For a summary of these debates, See Holsti (1991:23–27).
Polling the Nations database results when searching for ‘‘Iraq War’’ and ‘‘Afghanistan War’’ between March
2003–present and October 2001–present, respectively.
7
Including polls only for states that have contributed troops involved in offensive operations controls for the
possibility that states will view the operation differently—and put a different level of pressure on elites—depending
on whether they are only providing logistics support versus involved in offensive operations.
8
I excluded polls that queried whether the public thinks operations have been or will be successful or how the
leader has handled the operation, for example.
5
6
Sarah Kreps
195
Table 1. Major Troop Contributing States, Fatalities, Mean Public Support, Number of Polls, and
Alliance Commitment from August 2006 to December 2009
Mean public
support (%)
Troop
contributionsa
Fatalitiesb
No.
polls
United States
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
55
49
43
43
45,780
740
500
1,950
973
31
4
21
43
4
3
9
Canada
40
2,830
139
40
Czech Republic
Germany
40
39
370
4,280
3
34
3
11
Italy
France
Spain
UK
Poland
Turkey
34
33
33
32
21
18
3,150
3,750
1,065
9,500
1,955
17,755
22
39
27
250
16
2
3
8
5
17
6
4
Country
Observed alliance contribution
Troop increasec
Troop increase
Troop increased
Extended commitment;
flexible 2010 withdrawale
Extended commitment;
flexible 2011 withdrawalf
Troop increaseg
Troop increase; expanded
rules of engagementh
Troop increasei
Troop increasej
Troop increasek
Troop increasel
Troop increasem
Troop increasen
a
From http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf
http://icasualties.org/oef/ Though this paper does not explicitly test the connection between casualties and public support, these data cast doubt on that thesis. The United States, with a five-fold difference in casualties, also registers the highest mean public support for operations in Afghanistan. Canada and the UK, which also have high
levels of casualties, fall toward the middle in terms of public support.
c
Alberts 2009.
d
Norwegian Ministry of Defense, 2007.
e
de Vreij 2007; Woods 2009.
f
The plan is for 2011 withdrawal but Stephen Harper has left ‘‘wiggle room’’ that could allow for an extension. See
Koring 2009; Fitzpatrick 2009.
g
CTK News Agency 2008.
h
Deutsche Welle 2009.
i
BBC 2009.
j
Synovitz 2008.
k
Associated Press 2009.
l
Wintour and Traynor 2009.
m
United Press International 2009.
n
Uslu 2009.
b
state’s observed commitment to NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. It is
intended to provide a macro-level view of whether, in general, states are responding to low levels of support by retrenching—either tightening regulations on
how troops can be used or even withdrawing troops—or disregarding public
opinion by easing rules of engagement or even increasing troop numbers in
Afghanistan. These data suggest that the observed alliance contribution is not
linked closely with levels of public support, as all states have increased the
strength of their contributions whether they have a majority of support, as in the
United States, or lower levels of support as in parts of Western Europe.
Figure 19 compares support in the United States and that in the rest of the
allied countries over time and illustrates the divergence between support in the
United States and that in other participating countries. These data pool non-US
support into a single measure and contrasts it with US support by quarter
between August 2006 and December 2009. The reason to isolate the United
States and compare its numbers with the non-US support is that the United
States provides over half the troop contributions in Afghanistan. Comparing US
9
This and other figures are at the end of the text.
196
FIG 1. Comparison of US Support on a Quarterly Basis Compared to Public Support in Non-US
Troop Contributing Countries from August 2006 to December 2009
public opinion data with the aggregated data from non-US NATO forces is one
way of assessing the possible implications of adverse public opinion on alliance
cohesion. The coherence of alliance operations in Afghanistan would be unlikely
to disintegrate without support from a country that provides a few thousand
forces, but collectively would collapse without support of countries that in total
supply half the contributions. The reason to compare data by quarters is that
scarce data does not allow for a monthly time series, particularly from non-US
ISAF contributors where polling data has been scarce.
Data on cross-national support over time is consistent with the data in Table 1
and yields large disparities between the American public’s support for operations
in Afghanistan and that of many allies. Only in one quarter did aggregate support among states other than the United States exceed American support for
operations in Afghanistan. Further, support for the US versus non-US contributing countries has diverged over time. While American levels of support have
dropped from their highs of 2001–2002 when more than eight in every ten US
respondents expressed support for the war (Bowman 2008), they are up from
their relative lows of 2007 and have remained relatively steady. Conversely, nonUS levels of support reached their highs in late 2006 and the middle of 2007 but
have been mostly in the 30s since then, compared to American levels of support
in the mid-50s (see Figure 1).
If the dominant view in public opinion is to be believed, then the growing
divergence between US and non-US support for operations in Afghanistan would
be alarming for the coherence of the alliance. Since the key indicator of alliance
cohesion is ‘‘defection prior to the end of hostilities’’ (Weitsman 2003:85), alliance cohesion would suffer gravely as a result of the war’s unpopularity. Leaders
in countries where publics do not support operations in Afghanistan—that is, in
all non-US countries—would be inclined to reduce their troop commitments
since they are faced with strong electoral preferences that favor troop
withdrawal. NATO, whose operations in Afghanistan have been referred to as a
Sarah Kreps
197
FIG 2. Comparison of British Public Opinion and Troop Increases from May 2006 to January 201010
‘‘litmus test’’ for the alliance’s solvency, would fail that test, casting ‘‘a cloud
over the future of the alliance.’’11
However, as Table 1 shows, whether states increase their commitment to
NATO operations in Afghanistan has little to do with levels of public support.
Despite the cross-national variations in public support for operations in Afghanistan, from a mean of 55% in the United States to 18% in Turkey, there is little
variation in the member states’ commitment to multilateral operations. Leaders
have not responded to the public’s foreign policy preferences by withdrawing
troops. Rather, they have done just the opposite and increased support for
NATO-led operations in Afghanistan by easing restrictions—or caveats—on the
types of operations their militaries can conduct,12 extending their deployments,
and increasing troop numbers. The UK experience is representative, as it has
steadily increased troops deployments to Afghanistan as public opinion has
remained low (see Figure 2). That almost all states have increased their commitments in the face of an inhospitable public environment indicates that public
opinion may not be as powerful a determinant of foreign policy outcomes as the
conventional wisdom on public opinion would expect.
Explaining Alliance Members’ Commitment to Operations in Afghanistan
Elite Cohesion
The reason why there is less of a connection between public support and
withdrawal decisions than might be expected is because of high degrees of elite
10
Anthony Walton, ‘‘2,000 More Brits Sent Off to War,’’ Daily Star, November 14, 2008, Gerri Peev, ‘‘Troops
out of Iraq … but into Afghanistan,’’ The Scotsman, October 9, 2007; Thomas Harding, ‘‘More British Troops for
Afghanistan,’’ The Daily Telegraph, June 14, 2005, p.011. ‘‘Brown Sends in More Troops,’’ Daily Record, June 17, 2008.
11
BBC 2008. See also speech by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Giampaolo di Paola,
http://www.nato.int/ims/opinions/2009/o090216a.html
12
For more on caveats and how they have been applied in Afghanistan, See Auerswald and Saideman (2009).
198
Table 2. Summary of Government and Opposition Policies on Afghanistan in Lead NATO Contributing Countries
Country
Government policy
United States
United Kingdom
Troop increase
Troop increase
Germany
France
Troop increase and
expanded mandate
Troop increase
Italy
Troop increase
Canada
Extend troop presence to 2011;
diplomatic and development
effort thereafter
Opposition position
Bipartisan supporta
Support for troop increase
in both major partiesb
Support for troop increase
in both major partiesc
Supports a civilian strategy
but not withdrawal of military
troops from Afghanistand
Major parties have voted with
governing majoritye
Approved by liberals and conservativesf
a
Cooper 2009; Koring 2008.
Bingham and Porter 2009.
Kulish 2010.
d
Cody 2008.
e
Corriere della Sera 2009c.
f
Woods and Campion-Smith, 2008.
b
c
consensus in the political leadership of troop contributing countries. Elite consensus eliminates the passive source of costs that a democratic leader would
absorb in the presence of an opposition with divergent preferences, insulating
governments from their unpopular decisions (Schultz 1998:830).
John Zaller (1994:195, 196) defines elite consensus as the lack of an articulate,
mainstream opposition to the stated government policy and in which the most
important opposition leaders publicly support the government’s commitment.13
Elite consensus is not the same as saying that there is no elite opposition or
debate, which would be unusual over a costly 10-year deployment. In his study of
the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Zaller notes that President Bush confronted vocal
opposition from Democrats leading up to the war, ‘‘but the criticism was as notable for what it did not contain as for what it did. No important Democratic
spokesman urged Bush to withdraw American forces’’ (Zaller 1994:196, 197).
Elite consensus therefore refers to the absence of a coherent opposition to the
government’s basic foreign policy, in this case, troop deployments abroad.
As the case studies show in more detail and Table 2 summarizes, the member
governments of major contributors to the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan have
not found themselves in a debate-free environment, but the mainstream opposition view has supported the government’s basic policy of troop deployments well
beyond the public’s disenchantment with the war. To the extent that debate has
arisen, the opposition has been careful in how it frames the contention. France’s
Jean-Christophe Cambalelis (2009), Socialist Party national secretary for international relations, is representative. In expressing his party’s opposition, Cambalelis
was clear that his party did not support ‘‘simply and immediately withdrawing
our troops.’’ Rather, much like commanders in Afghanistan have asserted, the
French opposition favored emphasizing that the long-term solution in Afghanistan is political rather than military (Gilmore 2008). Tellingly, he also framed
the party’s position with explicit reference to those of senior alliance leaders,
13
Other scholars define elite consensus on the basis of elite surveys, for example on the European Union; however, there are no elite surveys or party manifestos having to do with Afghanistan so I investigate the stated positions of mainstream political parties. See Leonard (2003), Gabel and Scheve (2007).
Sarah Kreps
199
wondering how ‘‘our security is still threatened by Afghanistan-based Al-Qa’idah
when the NATO secretary general affirms that that country is no longer a refuge
for Al-Qa’idah and the top commander of American forces declares that this terrorist group has been defeated in Afghanistan’’ (Cambalelis 2009).
In sum, member state governments have experienced challenges to their position but the mainstream opposition view has largely been in line with government policies that maintain troops in Afghanistan while shifting the focus to
longer-term political solutions. Such convergence across parties means that the
government can more easily resist public preferences. Public opinion matters
when elites worry that they will lose votes; if dissatisfied constituents cannot distinguish between the parties on this issue, then the political risk of staying the
course is considerably lower.
Elite consensus as a determinant of foreign policy decisions is not a novel
argument. The prevailing view on elite consensus, however, suggests a top–down
process, in which unified opinions among elites affects attitudes among a politically aware public. ‘‘Where attitudes are united in support of a foreign policy,
politically aware Americans support that policy more strongly than any other part
of the public’’ (Zaller 1994:187). The logic is that the public takes its cues on
complex issues of policy from elites, who have access to more complete information about the wisdom of a particular operation and who can frame the intervention using simple, persuasive rhetoric (Mueller 1973; Brody and Shapiro 1989;
Drury, Overby, Ang, and Li 2008). While theoretically persuasive, this view is
remarkably at odds with the experience of states participating in Afghanistan
operations, particularly states other than the United States, where elite consensus
has done little to improve the negative public opinion environment. In these
cases, elite consensus merely defuses the electoral consequences and therefore
foreign policy effects of an adverse public opinion, allowing elites to fulfill alliance commitments without paying electoral costs.
From a purely political perspective, convergence of political elites would seem
to be something of a puzzle. Given the low levels of public support, it would be
electorally wise for opposition leaders to advance a strategy consistent with those
public preferences since doing so would increase their likelihood of holding
office in the future. As Ramsay observes (Ramsay 2004:463), ‘‘from the voter’s
perspective, each candidate offers a basket of characteristics that matter to the
voters, one of which is their foreign policy competence.’’ Offering a competing,
more appealing position on the most salient issue of foreign policy would be
one way to attract voters and maximize electoral gain. For voters that reside in
troop contributing countries, where lives, resources, and national prestige are on
the line, Afghanistan has come to define their leaders’ foreign policy competence. Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK have more troops deployed
in Afghanistan than anywhere else abroad (Cowell 2009).14 British members of
Parliament have acknowledged that ‘‘Afghanistan will be an issue in the General
Election, as Iraq was in the last one. Indeed, with its daily death toll, it may be
even more salient than Iraq was’’ (Davis 2009). Germany has engaged in its largest offensive operation since World War II, prompting a leading paper Der Spiegel to label Afghanistan ‘‘the country’s most important foreign policy issue’’
(Medick and Winter 2009). The reason for Afghanistan’s foreign policy import is
that these states’ troops are routinely killed—more per year than in Iraq (see Figure 3)—and each casualty, particularly an assault that leaves multiple soldiers
killed, intensifies public pressure on political elites to withdraw troops (Le Figaro
2008; Telegraph 2009; Morris and Norton-Taylor 2009; Fitzpatrick 2008; Der
Spiegel 2009).
14
See http://www.defense.gouv.fr/defense/content/download/147267/1278402/carteopexavril.swf.
200
FIG 3. Annual Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan Compared to Iraq
FIG 4. Troops as a Percentage of Member State’s Total Active Military
As a percentage of the member state’s military, a number of states commit
resources more than the United States, and several have had more casualties
relative to their populations than the United States, providing additional
perspective on Afghanistan’s salience among states’ publics, governments, and
militaries (see Figures 4 and 5). In short, the number of casualties and unprecedented size and duration of deployments makes Afghanistan the most salient foreign policy issue for troop contributing states and one on which the public
has repeatedly registered its displeasure. Opposition groups could propose
Sarah Kreps
201
FIG 5. Fatalities as a Percentage of the Member State’s Population
withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, knowing that about two-thirds of their
electorates would support that position, which would increase their likelihood
of winning office. As these strong domestic incentives to diverge from the
government make clear, relatively steady elite consensus is not the effect of collusion among political elites with an eye toward electoral immunity.
Rather, elite consensus is the result of systemic incentives associated with participation in a formal alliance. When states join formal alliances, they anticipate
that the overall benefits will exceed the costs, otherwise they would sit on the
sidelines. Those costs and benefits organize around two distinct decision-making
nodes. The first is the decision to join the alliance. Here the calculus is relatively
straight-forward. Presumably states perceive a common foe and conclude that
collective security is more efficient and effective than individual defense (Morgenthau 1978; Waltz 1979; Walt 1987; Morrow 1993). They trade off decisionmaking autonomy since the alliance requires compromise of state interest over
time but ultimately favor the virtues of aggregating member states’ capabilities
(Morrow 1994; Leeds 2003).
The second node is the decision to fulfill alliance commitments or renege
when conflict arises. Here the calculus is more mixed but still favors cooperation. On the one hand, ‘‘governments that are answerable to popular preferences face a dilemma when confronted by unpopular alliance commitments’’
(Gartzke and Gleditsch 2004:776). If states fulfill international expectations, they
could conceivably drag an unwitting state into an unwanted, unpopular conflict
(Snyder 1984), leading to incentives to renege on commitments in order to stay
in office. A democratic regime ‘‘exacerbates the problem of commitment, since
the actor promising action is likely to differ from the actor who must act’’ (Gartzke and Gleditsch 2004:780) because of electoral turnover. Public pressures
mean leaders must choose between satisfying the domestic audience and international allies, a tension that some scholars have found favors the domestic audience, particularly in a democracy.
On the other hand, reneging on an international commitment to satisfy a
domestic audience is not without considerable costs. One set of costs includes
the international and domestic audience costs. Because of the compromises
202
associated with formal alliances, joining an alliance is a costly signal to allies and
foes of a state’s intention to fulfill the commitment (Leeds 2003:805). It is a ‘‘signal
to other nations that the allies share certain interests and so are likely to coordinate
their actions in the future’’ (Morrow 1991:906). The result is that the alliance acts
as a commitment device, tying the hands of governments by bonding the state’s
reputation to its fulfillment of treaty obligations (Fearon 1997:85, 86). A state that
reneges on this commitment to coordinate future actions causes international and
domestic audiences to doubt a leader’s credibility and competence. Indeed, even
domestic audiences are concerned with their country or leader’s international
reputation (Tomz 2007a, 2007b; Leeds and Savun 2007; Leeds 2003).
Additional incentives to fulfill the commitment result because of the institutional history and design of the alliance. Formal alliances such as NATO represent a best-case scenario in terms of member states’ incentives for international
cooperation. As Crawford (1996:487) writes regarding states’ cooperation with
international regimes, ‘‘the odds of defection decrease when states historically
have derived benefits from cooperation and have agreed to cooperate into the
indefinite future.’’ NATO meets both of these conditions. First, it is a well-established formal institution with a long history of providing security benefits. For
decades the alliance confronted the Soviet threat, assuaged concerns about a
resurgent Germany, and provided a vehicle through which the United States
could rehabilitate Europe (McCalla 1996:448). Second, NATO has evolved over
time into a highly institutionalized alliance that proved adaptive after the Cold
War, retooling to meet new security challenges and showing that the alliance was
poised to deliver future gains to its member states (Wallander 2000). As Deudney
and John Ikenberry (1999:183) note, the alliance is characterized by ‘‘the
remarkable effort that its member states made to give their commitment a semipermanent status—to lock themselves in so as to make it difficult to exit.’’ Far
more so than the typical alliance or ad hoc coalition that forms to fight a war
and quickly disbands, the NATO alliance resembles a repeat play game, where
there is a long shadow of the future and high expectation of long-term play
(Oye 1985; Axelrod and Keohane 1985).15 This scenario favors cooperation
and ‘‘sticky’’ state commitments (Ikenberry 1999:16), a challenge to generalized
theories of alliances that are less sanguine about wartime cohesion.16
States are inclined to cooperate not just because of the historical benefits and
prospect of future returns but because of the punishment costs of defection.
Defecting earns states a reputation of unreliability, since failing in one instance
casts doubt on the reliability of future commitments. Actors that earn a reputation for defection are punished not just in the form of audience costs that derive
from audiences that question their credibility by being excluded from the benefits of future cooperation (Axelrod 1984; Keohane 1984; Downs and Jones 2002;
Tomz 2007a, 2007b). These reputational costs of defection are a powerful motivation for cooperation. Following an institutionalist logic of cooperation, Lisa
Martin (2003) has illustrated the hazards of defection with a discussion of US
unilateralism going into Iraq and a turn toward multilateralism once conditions
worsened: ‘‘Reputations can be squandered quickly … Turning to multilateral
organizations only under duress and when it appears convenient demonstrates a
lack of commitment.’’ Having poisoned the cooperation well going into the war,
future cooperation on Iraq became less probable. With its reputation on cooperation besmirched, the defector would less likely be the beneficiary of NATO
15
NATO has lasted far longer than any alliance in Singer and Small’s quantitative study of alliances. See Singer
and Small (1966).
16
For example, Weitsman’s argument that stronger states experience threats differently and that these threat
perception differentials affect alliance cohesion might not apply to a highly institutionalized alliance such as NATO.
See Weitsman (2003).
Sarah Kreps
203
cooperation midway through the conflict, particularly under conditions of
deteriorated security.
The converse was true in Afghanistan. Crafting a NATO-based response to operations in Afghanistan essentially tied the hands of successor governments.17 Domestic incentives for withdrawal became increasingly attractive over time, as casualties
mounted and public aversion grew. However, bundling a state’s contributions to
Afghanistan with a long-standing commitment to the multilateral alliance
increased the international costs of defection. Renegotiating or reneging on a
state’s contributions to operations in the formal alliance were considerably more
difficult since doing so would incur audience costs, risk punishment, and rule out
being a beneficiary of cooperation in the future (Fearon 1997; Moravcsik 2000;
Goldstein and Gowa 2002). Successor governments consequently would have their
hands tied on the question of troop commitments to the NATO-led operation,
locking them into credible state participation in the ongoing war.
These institutional incentives of the NATO alliance tie the hands and limit the
discretion not just of governments but also opposition groups. As Ramsay
observes (2004:473), ‘‘the opposition’s preferences are multidimensional (that is,
it is interested in winning the electoral competition and getting its country the
largest possible share of the international prize).’’ Domestic victory is indeed a
preference but international gain—or avoidance of cost—is also an opposition
consideration. Domestic unpopularity of fulfilling an alliance commitment creates incentives to defect that may be offset by the international gains of fulfilling
its state’s commitment. The opposition has no interest in its state suffering reputation costs of defection that make it difficult to receive the benefits of future
cooperation, when it might be the government leader. Moreover, in some cases
it was the opposition that initially offered its state’s commitment to the operation. For example, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) committed troops
to Afghanistan under Chancellor Schroeder in 2001; challenging these deployments now that it is part of the opposition would risk appearing disingenuous
given the SPD’s multi-year support for the deployment when it was in power.
In light of the preceding discussion, the finding that states have overwhelmingly fulfilled their commitments to the formal alliance of NATO is not entirely
surprising. The high costs of defection and the prospect of forgoing the benefits
of cooperation create an institutional stickiness that offsets the domestic unpopularity of fulfilling alliance commitments. The incentives to maintain international
commitments are powerful enough that they transcend political parties and
thereby help guard the leading party from electoral consequences. Taken
together, this argument about systemic incentives for cooperation shows why
public opinion has not had a bottom–up effect on decisionmaking; elite consensus regarding institutional commitments ultimately reduces the effect of public
opinion on foreign policy decisions.
Case Studies
As the data on public opinion and alliance commitment showed, adverse public
opinion environments have not caused member states to reduce their commitments to operations in Afghanistan. Having shown that there is little connection
between negative public opinion and these particular foreign policy outcomes,
the cases examine whether or why elite consensus has formed around the member state’s commitment in Afghanistan. They focus on the largest troop contributing states—those with over 2,000 troops each—since these would have the
biggest impact on alliance cohesion if they withdrew forces from Afghanistan. Of
17
See ‘‘ISAF-NATO Takeover Ceremony,’’ August 11, 2003, available at http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/
2003/s030811h.htm
204
the six countries in this group, I exclude two cases because they do not pose a
hard test for the argument. First, I exclude states where Leftist Parties are in government, since Center Right opposition parties may be expected to be ideologically more inclined to support the use of force. Thus, it excludes the UK, since
it does not test the source of elite consensus if the Conservative opposition
would have ideological rather than systemic incentives to support operations in
Afghanistan. Second, I also exclude the United States, since a majority or plurality of the American public has supported operations in Afghanistan since 2001,
making this an inadequate test of how public opinion affects decisions to withdraw a state’s commitments from the alliance. Based on these criteria, the next
section looks at public opinion, elite consensus, and alliance commitments in
Germany, France, Canada, and Italy.18
Germany
Of the countries that contribute troops to Afghanistan, Germany would seem to
be a most likely case for responsiveness to domestic preferences. The German
Bundestag votes annually on the troops’ mandate; as a result, its commitments
can shift year-to-year depending on the idiosyncrasies of the electoral process
and shifts in public opinion. The requirement that Germany’s participation be
reevaluated by the Bundestag every year means that the sustainability of its commitment is more precarious compared to the US government, for example,
where war-making authority resides predominantly in the executive and the legislature is more responsible for defense appropriations.19 Perhaps more fundamentally, Germany is a least likely case for war involvement generally due to its
post-World War II history of antimilitarism. Discarding its nationalist and militarist past, Germany moved after World War II to embrace a more pacific culture
of foreign policy that eschewed military force. This attitude has been reflected in
both elites and among public attitudes (Berger 1997; Risse 2001). Given this culture of antimilitarism, we might expect one of the main parties to capitalize on
the public’s general hostility to war or that elites themselves might share this
aversion.
That there has not been a serious consideration of withdrawing Germany’s
commitment to the NATO-led ISAF force is therefore unexpected. Public support
has hovered below 40%, with just 29% of Germans supporting the 2010 decision
to augment the deployment by 850 soldiers.20 A wise electoral strategy might be
for the SPD to diverge from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and favor a
far more restrictive policy; a less expansive commitment or perhaps even withdrawal from Afghanistan would match public preferences. Despite these circumstances, all major parties except the ‘‘Die Linke’’ (Leftist) Party have generally
supported Germany’s commitment to Afghanistan and avoided explicit calls
for withdrawal of troops (Lafontaine 2009).21 As a result of convergence among
18
International Security Assistance Force, available at http://www.nato.int/ISAF/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_
placemat.pdf
19
Indeed, the German executive always has the majority in the Bundestag, as the Chancellor is elected by this
body, not separately by the people. Thus, representation in the Bundestag would tend to reflect the coalition in
government, which would probably support the government’s position. However, submitting the issue for reapproval biannually means that intervening events such as large casualties might have dramatic impacts on Bundestag
members even if they are in the Chancellor’s coalition. The frequent debates and reapproval provides opportunities
for re-evaluation—and indeed troop withdrawal—in a way that does not happen in the US Congress, for example. I
thank Marcel Heberlein for pointing this out.
20
‘‘Neue Afghanistan-Politik: Erho¨hung der Zahl deutscher Soldaten,’’ 29 richtig; 65% nicht richtig, available
at http://wahltool.zdf.de/Politbarometer/mediathekflash.shtml?2010_01_29.
21
‘‘Interview with Left Party Leader Oskar Lafontaine (2009),’’ Der Spiegel, May 14, 2009. The Green Party
expresses discontent with the strategy, emphasizing more civilian aspects of the mission but have not advocated a
complete withdrawal. See Hickmann, Neukirch, and Stark (2009); Deutsche Welle 2007.
Sarah Kreps
205
major parties, the Parliament was able to minimize turning the Afghanistan
mission into a 2009 election issue; in November 2008, the German Bundestag
voted to expand the commitment in Afghanistan, from 3,500 to 4,500 troops and
extended the mandate to December 2009, deliberately expiring after the election
(Agence-France Press 2008c; Hickmann, Neukirch, and Stark 2009). In keeping with
this cross-party consensus, German government’s 2010 decision to increase troops
had the endorsement not just of the new governing coalition of Christian and
Free Democrats but also the main opposition party, the SPD (Kulish 2010;
Wiesmann 2010).
The willingness to sustain alliance commitments have come in large part
because of elites’ commitment to multilateral operations, a guiding principle
that characterizes post-World War II German security policy (Baumann and Hellmann 2001; Krause 2004). Speaking about Germany’s commitment to established
international institutions, for example, Vice Chief of Defense of the German
Bundeswehr LtGen Johann-Georg Dora characterized his country’s support for
multilateral security institutions such as NATO as near-unconditional: NATO
involvement is both necessary and sufficient for Germany’s participation in foreign interventions. Kosovo without NATO would not have been possible, just as
Iraq without NATO meant Germany would not participate. On the other hand,
NATO’s Article V Declaration after 9 ⁄ 11 was a sufficient condition for Germany’s
involvement in defense of the US homeland and later Afghanistan.22 One advisor to the German government corroborated the effect of the formal alliance as
follows: ‘‘we are stuck in a kind of war … After all, we are acting in the context
of NATO, as a commitment by the alliance. We’re acting with a mandate by the
UN … And to achieve this, we need to risk confrontations … To abstain from
this would be dishonest’’ (Radio Free Europe 2009).
France
French forces have been involved in Afghanistan operations since late 2001,
marking one of the earliest allied contributions, and the country has steadily
increased contributions over time despite the mission being unpopular domestically. Not only has the government responded to NATO’s requests for more
troops, it has gone further and rejoined the NATO military command, from
which General De Gaulle withdrew in 1966. Upon rejoining NATO’s military
command, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner argued that France’s role as a
future beneficiary was linked to the historical legacy of the alliance and France’s
ability to make an enduring commitment: ‘‘We are founding members of the
Atlantic Alliance. We have participated in all the NATO operations, in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Afghanistan, yet we haven’t been involved in developing the plans.
France can no longer go on being the only film director not invited to contribute to the screenplay!’’ On a number of occasions, Kouchner (2009) has voiced
the principles that supported his country’s commitment in Afghanistan: ‘‘We …
are staunch multilateralists.’’ An operation with formal multilateral backing, with
which Afghanistan operates, elicits support from French leaders who seek the
benefits from the alliance.
President Sarkozy similarly links France’s unpopular commitments in Afghanistan to the longevity of the alliance and associated benefits: ‘‘France will remain
engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what’s at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic alliance’’ (Saunders 2007).
Troop reinforcements have offered a way to provide an unambiguous signal of
interest and ‘‘open the door for France to a strong renewal of its relations with
22
Author’s interview with LtGen Johann-Georg Dora at the German Bundeswehr, May 25, 2007. For a similar
argument, see Henning Riecke interview, Radio Free Europe (2009).
206
NATO’’ (Brown 2008a, 2008b). French Defense Minister Herve´ Morin also
asserted that French troop commitments ‘‘must be done as part of a global
reflection on the reorganization of NATO forces’’ (Clark 2008a, 2008b), an organization that the French leadership believes should include and benefit France
over the long-term.
To the extent that the opposition has initiated debate about France’s involvement in Afghanistan, it has not challenged France’s commitment to the alliance
or Afghanistan, but has focused on the degree to which the country should have
decision-making voice within NATO. One reason that is unique to France is that
the country has a fraught relationship not just with the NATO alliance in general
but also the United States in particular. It is in this Gaullist spirit of independence and self-determination that the Socialists express consternation, but they
make clear that it is not as a rejection of the alliance or mission in Afghanistan.
In the August 2008 vote to send more troops to Afghanistan, the lopsided vote
of 343-210 in the Lower House and 209-119 in the Senate sent a strong signal of
political support for French operations in Afghanistan (Brown 2008a, 2008b;
France 24 2008; International Herald Tribune 2008; National Post 2008). While some
Socialists opposed the measure, they did so on the basis of a desire for more
commanding decision-making role in Afghanistan, not because they endorsed
withdrawing from Afghanistan altogether. On the contrary, in almost all
instances of opposition, the Socialists have offered the qualification that they do
not call for France to disengage from Afghanistan (Cody 2008). The opposition’s
concerns operate more at the margins, trying to shape how the mission is undertaken. Drawing on a history of anti-Americanism in French foreign policy, the
Socialists express concern that French interests will be subordinate to American
strategy and argue that the ‘‘all military option advocated by the Americans has
failed’’ (Moscovici 2008). Instead, the Socialist Opposition supports the comprehensive strategy that NATO and indeed American leaders have advocated.
Canada
Almost since the start of operations in Afghanistan, Canada has maintained a sizable military presence in the restive Kandahar region in the South. Despite the
growing casualties and public opposition, Members of Parliament from the two
major parties—Conservative and Liberal—remained united in support of the
mission, believing that Canada had to ‘‘keep its word to NATO’’ (Hebert
2007).23 As part of that bargain, however, Canada has expected that other alliance members will contribute to the operation. The logic is that if other states
do not contribute, alliance cohesion declines, casting doubt on the future benefits of the alliance, and calling into question the premise of Canada’s cooperation with the formal alliance.
A Panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley asserted the commitment to the alliance through sustained troop contributions but also spoke to
these concerns about how other states’ commitments affected Canada’s confidence about the future of the alliance. Pressing the alliance to reassert its own
commitment, Manley has frequently invoked Afghanistan as ‘‘NATO’s most
important mission … either they mean it … or they don’t. If they don’t, then we
need to look to the well-being of our young people’’ (CBC 2008a). Manley’s
report became the guiding principle of Canada’s contribution: Canada would
extend its commitment but only if had confidence in the future solvency of the
alliance, which itself required affirmations of other states that they would not
withdraw but rather contribute to the cohesion of the alliance. With the
23
The Quebecois and NDP Parties opposed early on, but neither party is in a position to become the governing party.
Sarah Kreps
207
additional commitment of troops from NATO member states, the Canadian
parliament voted 198 to 77 to keep soldiers in the most dangerous part of
Afghanistan and extend the mission. Most members of the Liberal Opposition
voted in favor, including Michael Ignatieff who became the leader of Canada’s
Liberal Party in December 2008 (Agence-France Presse 2008a; CBC 2008b). The
2008 extension resulted after earlier extensions in 2007 and in 2006. Even after
the most recent extension, the government indicated that it would retain Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 end date, albeit in a training and
support role (Potter 2008; Cudmore 2009; Nicholson 2009). According to the
government, support for operations in Afghanistan is synonymous with Canada’s
commitment to the alliance more generally: ‘‘Canada should build on its accomplishments … and ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our
international commitments and reputation are upheld’’ (Toronto Star 2008).
Canadian support is premised on the commitment it made to NATO and the
reputational loss it expects to suffer were it to withdraw its support.
While the rhetoric of the Opposition has more recently intimated displeasure
with the government’s policies in Afghanistan, the Liberal and Conservative parties have essentially been united in their support for these international commitments. Those in the Liberal Party who opposed the troop extensions in 2008
were careful to indicate that their vote represented lack of information about
the extension rather than opposition to the principle of the mission (Clark
2006). Then Liberal leader Ste´phane Dion opposed an indefinite deployment,
but was clear that his party would not consider pulling troops out, affirming that
Canada had to maintain its international commitments (Freeman 2007). Michael
Ignatieff also long supported Canada’s presence in Afghanistan, voting to extend
the mission and voicing his ‘‘unequivocal support’’ for operations in Afghanistan
(Curry 2008). Ignatieff’s advocacy for withdrawing combat troops, reinforcing
reconstruction and humanitarian operations, and beginning to transition responsibility to Afghan forces in 2011 are all consistent with the government’s policy
as well as NATO’s own goals in Afghanistan (Clark 2006; Marquant 2010).
Italy
As with the other member states that contribute sizable forces to Afghanistan,
Italy’s commitment has been durable, but because of the unstable coalitions that
characterize its parliamentary republic, subject to perturbations. Italy faced a test
of its commitment in February 2007, when the Parliament voted on operations
in Afghanistan. In defending the policy of a dominant role in Afghanistan, former Prime Minister Prodi’s Defense Minister Arturo Parisi suggested that increasing troops to NATO operations in Afghanistan was an effort ‘‘to corroborate our
country’s image as a credible and reliable ally … Italy needs to send signals
abroad of the clarity, continuity, and reliability of its commitments in time’’
(Cerretelli 2007).
Appearing to challenge this defense, two communist senators in Prodi’s coalition voted against a measure that would extend Italy’s commitment to Afghanistan. Because of Parliamentary rules enacted in 2005, Prodi’s government had a
slim majority in the Senate and the defection of two Senators from Prodi’s coalition brought the collapse of the government. Prodi tendered his resignation, to
which Italy’s President responded by requesting that Prodi face a confidence
motion in the Parliament (BBC Feb 2007a, 2007b; Fisher 2007). The Prodi government sustained two votes of confidence, drawing broad support within Parliament, including from Silvio Berlusconi’s Opposition Party. In describing his vote
to support Prodi and his policies, Berlusconi asserted that ‘‘a country must act in
a serious way and have a clear policy and be loyal to its allies,’’ referring to
NATO operations in Afghanistan (Scherer and Krause-Jackson 2007; Custodero
208
2007; Pothier 2008). Following the votes of confidence, Prodi faced another test
of his policy in Afghanistan, with a successful Parliamentary vote in March 2007.
Members of the Communist Renewal faction (the Far Left) resisted what they
viewed as the military-only policy in Afghanistan and their dissent siphoned off
support from within Prodi’s narrow governing coalition. The policy in Afghanistan gained support from the Opposition, however, ‘‘enthusiastic backers of the
Afghan commitment’’ (Popham 2007a, 2007b).
The February 2007 Parliamentary vote might seem to support the argument
about public opinion affecting foreign policy outcomes, but that linkage suffers
upon closer scrutiny. The measure consisted of far more than the narrow issue
of whether to extend the commitment to Afghanistan. It paired the Afghanistan
vote with important domestic issues such as the expansion of a US military base
in Italy, a contentious issue after Italy’s controversial support for the US-led Iraq
war and the report on extraordinary renditions that had been released by the
European Parliament the week before. The resolution also included a measure
to legally recognize unmarried couples, including same sex partners. Moreover,
Prodi’s coalition consisted of nine different parties with heterogeneous preferences and a slim majority. Abandoned by two members of his own coalition for
their opposition to the military base measures, Prodi was then dependent on
members of the Catholic UDEUR party, which opposed the same-sex aspect
of the proposal (Economist 2007; Hooper 2007; Braun 2008; Aloisi 2007).24 Thus,
the machinations of Italian politics, with its multi-issue votes and thin majorities
that produce unstable governments, led to tactical voting on specific aspects of
the bill. One of the two communist members who defected, Fernando Rossi,
defended his actions as motivated out of ignorance about the unintended consequences: ‘‘Perhaps if I had known my vote would be so fundamental, I would
have reflected further’’ (Popham 2007a). Franco Turigliatto, an Trotskyite in the
Communist Refoundation Party, asserted that his was not a vote of opposition
but abstention. Both contested the expansion of the US military base near Vicenza but appear not to have anticipated the strategic implications of the vote.
They both faced disciplinary action and expulsion from their own parties for
failing to fall ‘‘in line with the [party’s] democratic will’’ (BBC 2007a, 2007b;
Reuters 2007).
Elite consensus in Italy about the importance of the country’s commitment to
NATO has been a point of continuity despite changes in leadership and opposition groups. Berlusconi came into power in 2008 expressing his continued support for operations in Afghanistan. He has since expressed even greater
willingness to add troops and ease the ban on deploying troops to combat zones,
‘‘in a spirit of solidarity with its allies’’ (Agence-France Presse 2008b). In December
2008, Italy promised troop reinforcements in Western Afghanistan from 2,270 to
2,800 (Kington 2008). As Berlusconi argued, Afghanistan ‘‘is an international
problem. It is not a problem that a country present there can take on its own.
Doing so could betray the accord and trust of the other countries present’’
(CNN 2009). More recently, the Prime Minister expressed support for President
Obama’s Afghan strategy, indicating that ‘‘Italy will play its part in the awareness
that what is at stake in the conflict in Afghanistan is not only the Afghan people’s future … but also NATO’s credibility’’ (Corriere della Sera 2009c). Only when
NATO calls for withdrawal, Defense Secretary La Russa promised, would Italy
withdraw its troops. Foreign Minister Frattini confirmed that ‘‘Italy must finish
the job started with NATO’’ (Momigliano 2009) and that troops would not be
withdrawn. This is a position that both the government and mainstream opposition groups support. To be sure, members of the Communist Left, which has
24
The Catholic UDEUR only voted for the measure in March 2007 after Prodi had removed the same-sex recognition aspect of the legislation.
Sarah Kreps
209
been suspicious of the Afghan mission from the outset, and isolated members of
the Northern League, which has been denounced by the European Commission
for Racism and Intolerance for xenophobic remarks, diverge from this policy.
Former Defense Minister Parisi, however, expressed support for the government’s ongoing support for military operations in Afghanistan, indicating that
‘‘the PD (Democratic Party of the center-left) will continue its full and loyal support’’ for allied operations in Afghanistan (Corriere della Sera 2009a).
Discussion and Conclusion
Recent research on public opinion has moved away from the question of
whether politicians are responsive to public opinion, assuming that public opinion is a key determinant of foreign policy decisions. This research challenges
that assumption. With the exception of the United States, the publics of all
countries contributing sizable forces to Afghanistan (>2,000) support withdrawing their troops. In all of these countries, the leaders have not only maintained
troops in Afghanistan but in almost all cases reinforced those troops, leaving alliance cohesion intact.
Theoretical expectations about international cooperation and evidence from
case studies point to elite consensus as the reason why leaders are not running
for the exits in Afghanistan when their publics would prefer that they do. Undertaking the operation through an established formal institution such as NATO
brings the credible promise of future benefits for states who cooperate and audience and reputational costs for those who defect. Those systemic incentives are
powerful and in almost all cases have elicited elite consensus on keeping troops
in Afghanistan well beyond when member states’ publics have soured on the
war. Public opinion then has less influence because voters are unable to differentiate among these similar positions; elites can therefore continue the status quo
of troop deployments and in some cases even increase commitment to NATO
operations in Afghanistan without the threat of electoral punishment. French
President Sarkozy resisted public pressures to withdraw from Afghanistan after
the ambush on French troops, Germany has loosened caveats and increased the
number of troops, Canada again extended its mission, and Italian leaders of the
government and main opposition parties have been united and able to forestall
challenges from smaller parties on either the right or the left (Reimann 2007).
They are safer in making these foreign policy decisions because the electoral alternatives are not markedly different on the key foreign policy issue of
Afghanistan.
This is not to say that there has been no political debate on the question of
troop commitments to the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan. Governments
have faced challenges within their own parties, as President Obama did when he
deliberated on the surge of 30,000 troops in late 2009 and Gordon Brown has in
his handling of the war. Others such as in France and Canada have also faced
challenges from Opposition Parties. Notable in these cases, however, is what the
Opposition does not say. French Socialists, for example, are careful to say that
they do not support immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Canada’s Liberal
Opposition continuously asserts its adherence to international commitments and
its opposition to the withdrawal of troops. Instead it advocates a shift in focus to
a comprehensive strategy that emphasizes political strategy rather than one that
is military-only; this too is in line with the governing party and NATO’s senior
leadership.
Though I have advanced an argument about elite consensus, some possible
alternative explanations for discounting public opinion and for elite consensus
should be explored. One is that states’ commitments to NATO are not about the
formal alliance per se but the hegemonic influence of the United States within
210
that alliance. If anything, there is evidence that US influence actually dissuades
other states from offering more to the alliance. Part of the political discourse in
France, for example, is that the governing party should minimize subordinating
its priorities to those of the United States. For example, when Sarkozy affirmed
his intention to rejoin NATO’s military command, he was asked about whether
the move would reduce French independence relative to US interests. The Socialist member responsible for international affairs, Pierre Moscovici, wondered why
Sarkozy had attempted ‘‘rapprochement’’ and ‘‘global strategic alignment’’ with
the United States by rejoining the NATO military command, requiring that Sarkozy clarify the rationale that France would actually gain more voice by being
part of the formal institution (Economist 2008; Radio France 2008; Agence-France
Presse 2009). Thus, American influence in NATO is seen by a number of member
states as a reason to be wary of closer ties with the alliance.
Moreover, if American hegemony were a powerful and sufficient influence for
eliciting troop contributions, we might have expected that influence to generate
the same ally partners in Iraq that are present in Afghanistan. Yet far more
states, including the formal alliance of NATO and all its members, have contributed in Afghanistan whereas a number of them—France, Germany, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Turkey, and Greece—sat on the sidelines in Iraq. Side payments
in the form of foreign aid or loan guarantees may sweeten the incentives
but cannot independently produce state commitments in the form of blood and
treasure.
A second possible explanation for the resilience of commitments in Afghanistan is that they are motivated by basic state interest. Perhaps leaders have
framed their commitments in lofty principles of alliance commitment to mask its
state’s naked self-interest. Two factors cast doubt on the self-interest argument.
One is that the case for self-interest in Afghanistan is increasingly dubious. When
the mission began in 2001, it was clearly appropriate to see it as a war of necessity, with the goal of eliminating al qaeda and the hostile Taliban government in
Afghanistan. As Richard Haass has astutely pointed out, however, the removal of
Al qaeda in Afghanistan and friendly government in Kabul means that those original motivations are no longer apt and the current operation is a ‘‘war of
choice,’’25 which is to say that national interest is no longer directly at stake as it
was in the initial phases of the war.
Another factor is that states that contribute to operations in Afghanistan are
increasingly under threat as potential terrorist targets. Germany’s participation
ostensibly made Oktoberfest a target in 2009. Al Qaeda had threatened Germany
with attacks if the 2009 Bundestag election ‘‘result were not to give a signal for
withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan.’’26 The threat explicitly mentioned Oktoberfest as a target. Similarly, the UK came under threat for hosting
the Afghanistan development conference in 2010, causing it to raise its terror
alert to ‘‘highly likely’’ as a result (O’Neill 2010). Not only may participation in
Afghanistan not make states more secure, it may actually increase their risk of
coming under attack, which also challenges the state interest premise of remaining in Afghanistan.
The argument about systemic incentives for alliance commitments not only challenges the conventional wisdom on public opinion and foreign policy outcomes,
but also has important implications for alliance durability in theory and the
conduct of multilateral operations in practice. In particular, it suggests that
alliances created through formal institutions will produce more cohesion in
25
‘‘This is No Longer a War of Necessity,’’ Der Spiegel, September 28, 2009, available at http://www.
spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,651782,00.html
26
‘‘Terror Threats against Munich’s Oktoberfest Taken Seriously by Germany,’’ Spiegel Online, September 28,
2009.
Sarah Kreps
211
wartime than ad hoc coalitions of the willing for two reasons. First, an informal
alignment—defined as ‘‘similarity in interest without the formal mutual commitment present in an alliance27—is a shorter-term commitment that requires less
coordination of interests and loss of autonomy. Participation in a coalition is
therefore a relatively costless signal for a leader. He can align with another state,
accept the near-term benefits such as debt relief or foreign aid from the coalition
leader, but easily withdraw from the coalition without facing the same international and domestic audience costs that confront a leader who withdraws from a
formal alliance. Second, because coalitions are formed ‘‘without the implication
of coordination of their actions in the future’’ (Morrow 1991:906), the prospect of
defection brings few adverse consequences. In particular, punishment by excluding the defector from future cooperation benefits is meaningless since the coalition did not contemplate future interactions. For both of these reasons, we would
expect informal coalitions or alignments to lack the systemic incentives for cooperation that characterize a formal alliance such as NATO.28 Thus, ad hoc coalitions
may be more flexible particularly for the lead state, but that same flexibility means
more precarious wartime cohesion.
Iraq presents a useful foil. Six years into the Iraq conflict, the 47-country ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ had winnowed down to one, the United States. By comparison, NATO participation in Afghanistan has grown in the 8 years of involvement,
despite high casualties, unsympathetic publics, and a dubious prognosis for success. Formal alliances, long blamed for everything from buckpassing to abandonment to chainganging (Snyder 1984; Christensen and Snyder 1990) may yet have
much to recommend them.
References
Agence-France Presse. (2008a) Canada Looks to 2011 Afghanistan Combat Mission End Date.
Agence France Presse, February 8.
Agence-France Presse. (2008b) Italy Rethinks Afghanistan Troop Deployment: Berlusconi. AgenceFrance Presse, May 28.
Agence-France Presse. (2008c) German Cabinet Extends Unpopular Afghan Mandate. Agence-France
Presse, October 7.
Agence-France Presse. (2009) France’s Sarkozy Defends Stance on Afghanistan, NATO. AgenceFrance Presse, April 1.
Alberts, Sheldon. (2009) Obama Orders 17,000 More US Troops in Afghanistan. National Post, February 17.
Aldrich, John H., Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, and Kristin Thompson
Sharp. (2006) Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection. Annual Review of Political Science 9:
477–502.
Almond, Gabriel A. (1956) Public Opinion and National Security Policy. The Public Opinion Quarterly
20: 371–378.
Aloisi, Silvia. (2007) Italy’s Prodi Squirms after US Base Vote Blunder. Reuters, February 2.
Arian, Alan. (1995) Security Threatened: Surveying Israeli Opinion on Peace and War. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Associated Press. (2009) Spain Prepared to Boost Troops in Afghanistan. Associated Press, June 30.
Auerswald, David, and Stephen Saideman. (2009) Caveats Emptor: Multilateralism at War in
Afghanistan. Paper Presented at the 2009 International Studies Association meeting, New York.
Axelrod, Robert. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Axelrod, Robert, and Robert Keohane. (1985) Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies
and Institutions. World Politics 48: 226–254.
27
An alignment is defined as ‘‘similarity in interest without the formal mutual commitment present in an alliance.’’ See Morrow (1991:906).
28
Motivations to contribute to an ad hoc coalition (for example, either Iraq War) would be qualitatively different than to join and follow through on a formal alliance such as NATO in wartime. For a study of ad hoc coalitions, See Bennett, Lepgold, and Unger (1994).
212
Baumann, Rainer, and Gunther Hellmann. (2001) Germany and the Use of Military Force. German
Politics 10: 61–82.
BBC. (2007a) Italian Coalition ‘to Back Prodi. BBC, February 23.
BBC. (2007b) Italian Crisis Talks as PM Quits. BBC, February 22.
BBC. (2008) NATO ‘At Risk over Afghanistan’. BBC, February 7.
BBC. (2009) Italy ‘to Send 1,000 Extra Troops’ to Afghanistan. BBC, December 3.
Bennett, Andrew, Joseph Lepgold, and Danny Unger. (1994) Burden-Sharing in the Persian Gulf
War. International Organization 48: 39–75.
Berger, Thomas U. (1997) The Past and the Present: Historical Memory and German National Security Policy. German Politics 6: 39–59.
Berinsky, Adam, and James N. Druckman. (2007) Public Opinion Research and Support for the
Iraq War. Public Opinion Quarterly 71: 126–141.
Bingham, John, and Andrew Porter. (2009) Conservatives to Increase British Troop Levels in
Afghanistan, David Cameron Hints. Daily Telegraph, August 3.
Bowman, Karlyn. (2008) America and the War on Terrorism. Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute Studies in Public Opinion.
Braun, Michael. (2008) Prodi Resigns, Berlusconi Rejoices. Der Spiegel, January 25.
Brody, Richard, and Catherine Shapiro. (1989) A Reconsideration of the Rally Phenomenon in
Public Opinion. In Political Behavior Annual, edited by Samuel Long. Boulder: Westview.
Brown, Colin. (2008a) French Troops for Afghan Force; NATO Relations Boosted in Controversial
Decision. Canberra Times, April 5.
Brown, Colin. (2008b) Sarkozy Comes to Bush’s Rescue with 1,000-Strong Force for Afghanistan.
The Independent, April 4.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Randolph M. Siverson. (1995) War and the Survival of Political
Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability. American Political
Science Review 89: 841–855.
Cambalelis, Jean-Christophe. (2009) Leading French Socialist Calls for Review of Afghanistan Mission. La Libe´ration, October 19.
CBC. (2008a) Extend Afghan Mission in NATO Sends More Troops. CBC News, January 22.
CBC. (2008b) House Votes in Favour of Extending Afghan Mission. CBC News, March 13.
Cerretelli, Adriana. (2007) Parisi Tells NATO Italian Troops to Stay in Afghanistan. Il Sole-24 Ore,
February 10.
Christensen, Thomas, and Jack Snyder. (1990) Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance
Patterns in Multipolarity. International Organization 44: 137–168.
Clark, Campbell. (2006) Vote Divides Liberal Hawks from Doves. Globe and Mail, May 19.
Clark, Campbell. (2008a) Poland Joins Canada in Call for More Troops in Afghanistan. Globe and
Mail, February 5.
Clark, Campbell. (2008b) France Hints it Will Offer Canada Troop Support. Globe and Mail, February 8.
CNN. (2009) Berlusconi Seeking Afghan Exit for Italian Troops. CNN, September 18.
Cody, Edward. (2008) Sarkozy Wins Approval for French Role in Afghanistan. Washington Post, September 23.
Cooper, Helene. (2009) Challenges Mount for Obama’s Afghan Policy. International Herald Tribune,
September 4.
Corriere della Sera. (2009a) Italian Daily Says Government, Opposition Agree to Continue Afghan
Mission. Corriere della Sera, July 27.
Corriere della Sera. (2009b) Italian President Highlights Opposition Support for Afghan Mission.
Corriere della Sera, September 30.
Corriere della Sera. (2009c) Italy to ‘Play its Part’ in Afghanistan. Corriere della Sera, December 2.
Cowell, Alan. (2009) Italy May Add 1,000 Extra Troops in Afghanistan. New York Times,
December 3.
Crawford, Beverly. (1996) Explaining Defection from International Cooperation: Germany’s Unilateral Recognition of Croatia. World Politics 48: 482–521.
CTK News Agency. (2008) Czechs to Deploy More Troops in Afghan Mission in 2009. CTK News
Agency, September 30.
Cudmore, James. (2009) Troops Get Non-Combat Role in Afghanistan after 2011. CBC, October 10.
Curry, Bill. (2008) Leaders Share Some Surprising Similarities. Globe and Mail, December 11.
Custodero, Alberto. (2007) Union Split, the Right Applauds. La Repubblica, May 16.
Davis, David. (2009) Crunch Time for a Botched Mission. The Independent, November 19.
Der Spiegel. (2009) Three German Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan. Der Spiegel, June 23.
Sarah Kreps
213
Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. (1999) The Nature and Sources of Liberal International
Order. Review of International Studies 25: 179–196.
Deutsche Welle. (2007) Germany’s Green Party Split over Afghanistan Mandate. Deutsche Welle,
September 17.
Deutsche Welle. (2009) New Rules of Engagement. Deutsche Welle, May 7.
Downs, George W., and Michael A. Jones. (2002) Reputation, Compliance, and International Law.
Journal of Legal Studies 31: S95–S114.
Drezner, Daniel. (2008) The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion. Perspectives on Politics 6:
51–70.
Drury, L. A. Cooper, Marvin Overby, Adrian Ang, and Yitan Li. (2008) ‘Pretty Prudent’ or
‘Rhetorically Responsive’? The American Public’s Support for Military Action. Political Research
Quarterly 63: 83.
Economist. (2007) Prodi Resurrected—For Now. The Economist, March 3.
Economist. (2008) Gaullist No More? The Economist, April 5.
Eichenberg, Richard C. (2005) Victory Has Many Friends: US Public Opinion and the Use of
Military Force, 1981–2005. International Security 30: 149–177.
Fearon, James. (1997) Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs. Journal
of Conflict Resolution 41: 68–90.
Fisher, Ian. (2007) Italian Premier Resigns after Losing Foreign Policy Vote. New York Times,
February 22.
Fitzpatrick, Meagan. (2008) Afghan Casualties to Arrive Home Wednesday. National Post, January 8.
Fitzpatrick, Meagan. (2009) Bring All Troops Home in 2010, Most Say. The Montreal Gazette, July
16.
Foster, H. S.. (1983) Activism Replaced Isolationism: US Public Attitudes 1940–1975. Washington, DC:
Foxhall.
France 24. (2008) France Stands by Afghanistan Commitment. France 24, August 24.
Freeman, Alan. (2007) Canadian Troops Will Leave in 2009, Dion Says. The Globe and Mail, July 5.
Gabel, Matthew, and Kenneth Scheve. (2007) Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on
Public Opinion using Instrumental Variables. American Journal of Political Science 51: 1013–1028.
Gartzke, Erik, and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. (2004) Why Democracies May Actually be Less
Reliable Allies. American Journal of Political Science 48: 775–795.
Gelpi, Christopher, Peter D. Feaver, and Jason Reifler. (2005-06) Casualty Sensitivity and the
War in Iraq. International Security 30: 7–46.
Gilmore, Gerry J. (2008) Afghanistan’s Solution Primarily Political, Not Military, General Says.
American Forces Press Service, October 1.
Goldstein, Judith, and Joanne Gowa. (2002) US National Power and the Post-War Trading
Regime. World Trade Review 1: 153–170.
Hebert, Chantal. (2007) Afghanistan Mission Will Test Quebec Debate. Toronto Star, July 10.
Hickmann, Christoph, Ralf Neukirch, and Holger Stark. (2009) Afghanistan Deployment
Descends into Partisan Bickering. Der Spiegel, December 29.
Holsti, Ole. (1991) American Reactions to the USSR: Public Opinion. In Soviet-American Relations
after the Cold War, edited by Robert Jervis, and Seweryn Bialer. Durham: Duke University Press.
Holsti, Ole. (1992) Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann
Consensus. International Studies Quarterly 36: 439–466.
Hooper, John. (2007) Prodi Stands Down after Surprise Defeat in Senate over US Alliance. The
Guardian, February 22.
Ikenberry, John. (1999) After Victory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
International Herald Tribune. (2008) French Parliament Votes to Continue Afghan Mission.
International Herald Tribune, September 22.
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Rebecca L. Britton. (1998) Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold
War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42: 395–
417.
Keohane, Robert. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kington, Tom. (2008) Italy Mulls Afghan Commitments, Shrinking Budgets. Defense News, December
15.
Koring, Paul. (2008) US will Send More Soldiers, Bush Says. Globe and Mail, April 5.
Koring, Paul. (2009) Canada, Allies Will Never Defeat Taliban. Globe and Mail, March 2.
Kouchner, Bernard. (2009) Interview with French Foreign Minister. Le Figaro, March 9.
Krause, Joachim. (2004) Multilateralism: Behind European Views. Washington Quarterly 27: 43–59.
214
Kulish, Nicholas. (2010) Germany to Add Troops to Afghan War. New York Times, January 26.
Lafontaine, Oskar. (2009) Interview with Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel, May 14.
Lai, Brian, and Dan Reiter. (2005) Rally ‘Round the Union Jack? Public Opinion and the Use of
Force in the United Kingdom, 1948–2001. International Studies Quarterly 49: 255–272.
Larson, Eric V., and Bogdan Savych. (2005) American Public Support for US Military Operations.
Arlington: Rand Corporation.
Le Figaro. (2008) Les Trois Lec¸ons a` Tirer de L’embuscade Afghane. Le Figaro, August 25.
Leeds, Brett Ashley. (2003) Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to
Violate Treaties. International Organization 57: 801–827.
Leeds, Brett Ashley, and Burcu Savun. (2007) Terminating Alliances: Why Do States Abrogate
Agreements? American Journal of Political Science 69: 1118–1132.
Leonard, Ray. (2003) When Parties Matter: The Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter
Opinions about European Integration. Journal of Politics 76: 978–994.
Lippmann, Walter. (1925) The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1997) American Exceptionalism. New York: WW Norton.
Marquant, Robert. (2010) At London Afghanistan Conference, a Developing Script of Withdrawal.
Christian Science Monitor, January 28.
Martin, Lisa. (2003) Multilateral Organizations after the US-Iraq War. In The Iraq War and its Consequences: Thoughts of Nobel Peace Laureates and Eminent Scholars, edited by Irwin Abrams, and Wang
Gungwu. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
McCalla, Robert. (1996) NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War. International Organization 50: 445–
475.
Medick, Veit, and Sebastian Winter. (2009) Left Party Signals New Tone on Afghanistan. Der
Spiegel, September 18.
Momigliano, Anna. (2009) More Italians to Afghanistan. Christian Science Monitor, December 2.
Moravcsik, Andrew. (2000) The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in
Postwar Europe. International Organization 52: 217–252.
Morgenthau, Hans. (1978) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th edition. New
York: Knopf.
Morris, Steven, and Richard Norton-Taylor. (2009) Tributes to Lance Corporal, the 100th
British Casualty in Afghanistan of 2009. The Guardian, December 8.
Morrow, James D. (1991) Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation
Model of Alliances. American Journal of Political Science 35: 904–933.
Morrow, James D. (1993) Arms versus Allies: Trade-Offs in the Search for Security. International
Organization 47: 207–233.
Morrow, James. (1994) Alliances, Credibility, and Peacetime Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38:
270–297.
Moscovici, Pierre. (2008) French Ministers, Socialists at Odds over NATO Summit Results. Radio
France Internationale, April 4.
Mueller, John. (1973) War, Presidents, and Public Opinions. New York: Wiley.
National Post. (2008) Sarkozy’s Afghan Mission Survives Vote. National Post, April 9.
Nicholson, Brendan. (2009) US to Seek Australian Troop Boost. The Age, February 19.
Norwegian Ministry of Defense. (2007) Norwegian Force Contributions to ISAF in Afghanistan.
Available at http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fd/press-centre/Press-releases/2007/Norwegianforce-contributions-to-ISAF-in.html?id=488551 (Accessed May 2, 2010).
O’Neill, Sean. (2010) Terrorist Level Raised to ‘Severe’. The Times, January 22.
Oye, Kenneth A. (1985) Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World
Politics 38(1): 1–24.
Page, Benjamin, and Robert Shapiro. (1983) Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political
Science Review 77: 175–190.
Popham, Peter. (2007a) Prodi Loses Support as Andreotti and Right-Wing Take Blame for his
Downfall. The Independent, February 23.
Popham, Peter. (2007b) Foreign Policy brings Prodi to the Edge Again. The Independent, March 28.
Pothier, Fabrice. (2008) Winning European Hearts and Minds on Afghanistan. Europe’s World,
Autumn.
Potter, Mitch. (2008) France Ready to Help Canada in Afghanistan. Toronto Star, February 8.
Radio France. (2008) French Ministers, Socialists at Odds over NATO Summit Results. Radio France
Internationale, April 4.
Radio Free Europe. (2009) In Germany’s Afghan Commitment, ‘Splitting Hairs Won’t Help: We
Are At War’. Radio Free Europe, June 26.
Sarah Kreps
215
Ramsay, Kristopher. (2004) Politics at the Water’s Edge: Crisis Bargaining and Electoral Competition.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 459–486.
Reimann, Anna. (2007) Italian TV Shows Hostage Execution Footage. Der Spiegel, April 12.
Reuters. (2007) Leftist ‘Traitors’ Squirm after Ousting Italy’s PM. Reuters, February 22.
Risse, Thomas. (2001) A European Identity? In Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic
Change, edited by Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso, and Thomas Risse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. (1991) Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal
Democracies. World Politics 43: 479–512.
Saunders, Doug. (2007) France Weighs Expanding International Role on the Ground. Globe and
Mail, November 13.
Scherer, Steve, and Flavia Krause-Jackson. (2007) Prodi Wins Confidence Vote as Afghan Vote
Looms. Bloomberg, March 1.
Schultz, Kenneth. (1998) Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises. American
Political Science Review 92: 829–844.
Sennott, Charles M. (2006) Afghanistan: After 5 Years, a Forgotten War? International Herald
Tribune, September 13.
Singer, J. David, and Melvin Small. (1966) Formal Alliances, 1815–1939: A Quantitative Description. Journal of Peace Research 3: 1–32.
Snyder, Glenn. (1984) The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics 36: 461–495.
Synovitz, Ron. (2008) Afghanistan: France Offers Troops to Bolster ISAF Mission. Radio Free Europe,
April 3.
Telegraph. (2009) British Forces in Afghanistan Suffer Highest Monthly Casualty Rate Since Start of
Mission. The Telegraph, July 30.
Telhami, Shibley. (1993) Arab Public Opinion and the Gulf War. Political Science Quarterly 108: 437–
452.
Tomz, Michael. (2007a) Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental
Approach. International Organization 61: 821–840.
Tomz, Michael. (2007b) Reputation and International Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Toronto Star. (2008) House Supports Continuation of Canada’s Current Responsibility. The Toronto
Star, February 9.
United Press International. (2009) Poland Sending More Troops to Afghanistan. United Press
International, April 17.
Uslu, Emrullah. (2009) Turkish Military Prepares to Strengthen its Forces in Afghanistan. Eurasia
Daily Monitor, July 9.
de Vreij, Hans. (2007) Dutch Troops: Two More Years in Uruzgan. Radio Netherlands, November 29.
Wallander, Celeste. (2000) Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War. International Organization 54: 705–735.
Walt, Stephen. (1987) Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen. (1997) Why Alliances Endure or Collapse. Survival 39: 156–179.
Waltz, Kenneth. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Wiesmann, Gerrit. (2010) Bundestag Gives Go-Ahead to Troop Boost in Afghanistan. Financial
Times, 27 February.
Weitsman, Patricia. (2003) Alliance Cohesion and Coalition Warfare: The Central Powers and
Triple Entente. Security Studies 12: 79–113.
Weitsman, Patricia. (2004) Dangerous Alliances. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Wilson, Isaiah. (2007) Thinking Beyond War: Civil–Military Relations and Why America Fails to Win the
Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wintour, Patrick, and Ian Traynor. (2009) Europe to Contribute 5,000 Extra Troops to
Afghanistan. The Guardian, April 4.
Woods, Allan. (2009) Dutch Also Seek Afghan Relief. The Star, April 3.
Woods, Allen, and Bruce Campion-Smith. (2008) Kandahar Pullout in 2011? Toronto Star, 12
February.
Zaller, John. (1994) Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War. In
Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, edited by
W. Lance Bennett, and David Paletz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance

Transcription

Similar documents

New Jan Group Supply Service

Plan du campus Université Paris 8 Vincennes-Saint

File

H.E. Dr. ZAHIR TANIN Permanent Representative of the Islamic

Back Page - Daily Outlook Afghanistan

coins for caring letters

If you haven`t read the article yet, click here to it

D Achilles Among the Maidens

PDF Map - Afghan Ag