"The recent American debate over whether and how to invade Iraq clustered into civilian versus military camps. Top military officials appeared reluctant to use force, the most hawkish voices in government were civilians who had not served in uniform, and everyone was worried that the American public would not tolerate casualties in war. This book shows that this civilian-military argument is typical, not exceptional. It characterized earlier debates over Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo, and the underlying patterns has shaped U.S. foreign policy at least since 1816. Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi explore civilian and military attitudes through opinion surveys of elites (military and civilian) and the general public."--BOOK JACKET.

The civil-military opinion gap over the use of force -- The impact of elite veterans on American decisions to use force -- Casualty sensitivity and civil-military relations -- Exploring the determination of casualty sensitivity.