This book explores the intersection of the study of transatlantic relationships and the study of public support for the use of force in foreign policy. It contributes to two important debates: one about the nature of transatlantic partnership, and another about the determinants of support for the use of military force in a comparative perspective.

This book analyses transatlantic public opinion on post-Cold War era military operations in Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003). It surges into the differences recorded in the transatlantic relations and the growing asymmetry between the publics of the two poles in assessing the military engagements, especially over the use of force in the post-Cold War period. Confronted with the need to examine broader correlations between trends in wars and trends in public opinion, this book generates the polygonal hypothesis that "military operations taken at a "high-risk level" with "high costs" inevitably downgrades the acceptable utility hence public support for the action, while use of force with the principal objective of "foreign policy restraint" encourages popular support." The main implication of this book is as straightforward as it is important: 'the persistence of traditional Cold War concerns and continuation of realist way of thinking rather than speaking of ideals and values shape public opinion on use of force in post-Cold War era'.

This book explores the intersection of the study of transatlantic relationships and the study of public support for the use of force in foreign policy. It contributes to two important debates: one about the nature of transatlantic partnership, and another about the determinants of support for the use of military force in a comparative perspective.

Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the relationship between public opinion and foreign policy in Western democracies. This international board of contributors examine the ways in which the connection between public opinion and the use of military force has developed since the end of the Cold War. In doing so, it also addresses the crucial and topical question of whether, and to what extent a democratic foreign policy is possible.

This book provides a long-term perspective on the opinions of the British public on foreign and defence policy in the post-war era. Thematically wide-ranging, it looks at the broader role of foreign and defence policy in British politics and elections, public opinion towards Britain’s key international relationships and alliances (the United States, NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth), and public opinion towards the projection of ‘soft power’ (overseas aid) and ‘hard power’ (defence spending, nuclear weapons and military intervention). Assessing the main areas of change and continuity in the public’s views, it also pays close attention to the dividing lines in wider society over foreign and defence policy. Analysing an extensive range of surveys and opinion polls, the book situates the analysis in the wider context of Britain’s changing foreign policy role and priorities in the post-war era, as well as linking public opinion with the politics of British external policy – the post-war consensus on Britain’s overseas role, historical and contemporary areas of inter-party debate, and enduring intra-party divides. This text will be of key interest to scholars and students of British politics, European politics, foreign policy analysis, public opinion, defence and security studies and more broadly to comparative politics and international relations.

This book examines US recourse to military force in the post-9/11 era. In particular, it evaluates the extent to which the Bush and Obama administrations viewed legitimizing the greater use-of-force as a necessary solution to thwart the security threat presented by global terrorist networks and WMD proliferation.