November 19, 2009
This publication is now archived.
In international polls, most Americans agree that military force is sometimes necessary to maintain order in the world. Download full chapter (PDF).
International polls find that publics around the world, including in the United States, believe that the UN Security Council has the right to authorize the use of force to prevent and respond to violent conflict in a variety of contingencies. These include: to defend a country that has been attacked, to prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide, to stop a country from supporting terrorist groups, and to restore by force a democratic government that has been overthrown. More broadly, Americans say the idea that national sovereignty precludes intervention in the internal affairs of countries is outdated. Download full chapter (PDF).
Polls further find that the UN Security Council is seen as having not only the right, but the responsibility to authorize the use of military force to prevent severe human rights violations. Download full chapter (PDF).
In principle, most Americans favor the United Nations having a standing peacekeeping force that it selects, trains, and commands. A majority also wants peacekeeping policy to be decided at the United Nations rather than by national governments or regional organizations. Americans favor providing financial support to the United Nations for peacekeeping. Download full chapter (PDF).
A large majority in the United States approves in principle of participating in peacekeeping. As a general rule, support is strong for participation in post-conflict situations, but less consistent when it comes to intervening in civil conflict. In the recent past, Americans have expressed support for contributing U.S. troops to military operations in the Balkans, southern Lebanon, Haiti, and Liberia, and to enforce peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. A slight majority has also favored contributing to a UN operation to keep peace between India and Pakistan. Download full chapter (PDF).
The Afghanistan war began with high majority support among the U.S. public, even though a majority expected it to last several years or longer. As of October 2009, about one-third of the public thinks the military action was a mistake, but six in ten disagree. A majority believes the war is going badly, and approval of the administration’s handling of Afghanistan has declined. However, a majority continues to reject the idea of withdrawal and substantially fewer than half even favor troop reductions. A majority approved of the troop increase in February 2009; however, there is not majority support for a second increase. Reasons Americans cite for maintaining the operation are to weaken terrorists’ ability to stage attacks and to keep the Taliban from regaining power. Download full chapter (PDF).
Many Americans feel that the United Nations has the responsibility, rather than simply the right, to intervene in Darfur. Approximately three out of four Americans has expressed a readiness to contribute U.S. troops to an international force to stop the killing and support a humanitarian operation in Darfur. Download full chapter (PDF).
Americans show significant resistance to using U.S. military force without UN approval except in self-defense or when vital interests are at stake. Even when it comes to defending other countries from aggression, Americans show reluctance to do so except as part of a UN operation. Support is quite strong for contributing U.S. troops to UN peacekeeping operations. Download full chapter (PDF).
When NATO decides to take a military action, the U.S. public believes that all NATO members should contribute troops and, if not, at least contribute financially. American support for such a shared contribution is exceptionally higher than that expressed in other NATO member countries. Download full chapter (PDF).
Janine Davidson examines the art, politics, and business of American military power.
Micah Zenko covers the U.S. national security debate.
Edward Alden and others explore ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength.
Maximalist finds lessons in the past that anticipate and clarify our chaotic present, revealing the history of U.S. foreign policy in an unexpected new light. More
This clear and authoritative book presents a sweeping account of China's global resource quest and the unrivaled expansion of its economy. More
The story of the tragic and often tormented relationship between the United States and Pakistan, and a call to prepare for the worst, aim for the best, and avoid past mistakes. More
This Independent Task Force asserts that elevating and prioritizing the U.S.-Canada-Mexico relationship offers the best opportunity for strengthening the United States and its place in the world.
This Independent Task Force report finds that as more people and services become interconnected and dependent on the Internet, societies are becoming increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks.
The authors argue that it is essential to begin working now to expand and establish rules and norms governing armed drones, thereby creating standards of behavior that other countries will be more likely to follow.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.
The authors assess the political, security, and economic challenges facing U.S. policymakers in Afghanistan and evaluate a range of policy options.
CFR is seeking candidates for the following 2014–2015 fellowship program. For more information, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Edward R. Murrow Press Fellowship:
March 1 Application Deadline
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
An historical timeline of U.S. public opinion on the war with Iraq from AEI Public Opinion Studies, from the build up to war, through to the...