Analysis & Opinions - The Washington Post
Trump Just De-escalated in the Middle East. Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Be Surprised.
By taking the off-ramp, Trump triggered a tentative sigh of collective relief from those anxious about continued conflict in the Middle East. But recent research suggests that this apparent de-escalation in an election year should come as no surprise.
Presidents have incentives to avoid conflict in an election year
As my recent article in the journal International Security discusses, elections powerfully constrain presidential decisions about war and peace. As both commander in chief and holder of the highest elected U.S. office, presidents balance the competing interests of national security and political survival. When considering the use of force, they want any course of action they choose to carry minimal electoral risk.
Since voters bear the financial and human costs of war, they don’t usually reward incumbents who enter wars recklessly. As a result, presidents have good political reasons to think twice before putting troops in harm’s way. As President George W. Bush once joked to troops in the Middle East: “You don’t run for office in a democracy and say, ‘Please vote for me, I promise you war.’ ”
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Washington Post.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
Payne, Andrew.“Trump Just De-escalated in the Middle East. Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Be Surprised..” The Washington Post, January 11, 2020.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
Presidents, Politics, and Military Strategy: Electoral Constraints during the Iraq War
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
The Morality of Ukraine's War Is Very Murky
Analysis & Opinions
- The Sunday Times
China is Using Every Trick for World Domination
Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
By taking the off-ramp, Trump triggered a tentative sigh of collective relief from those anxious about continued conflict in the Middle East. But recent research suggests that this apparent de-escalation in an election year should come as no surprise.
Presidents have incentives to avoid conflict in an election year
As my recent article in the journal International Security discusses, elections powerfully constrain presidential decisions about war and peace. As both commander in chief and holder of the highest elected U.S. office, presidents balance the competing interests of national security and political survival. When considering the use of force, they want any course of action they choose to carry minimal electoral risk.
Since voters bear the financial and human costs of war, they don’t usually reward incumbents who enter wars recklessly. As a result, presidents have good political reasons to think twice before putting troops in harm’s way. As President George W. Bush once joked to troops in the Middle East: “You don’t run for office in a democracy and say, ‘Please vote for me, I promise you war.’ ”
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Washington Post.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Presidents, Politics, and Military Strategy: Electoral Constraints during the Iraq War
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
The Morality of Ukraine's War Is Very Murky
Analysis & Opinions - The Sunday Times
China is Using Every Trick for World Domination
Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It