The Politics of Progress: Metrics, Public Opinion, and Strategy in War

• In Event: Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy

Abstract

Recent literature has called into question the degree to which the public is casualty-sensitive, arguing that expectations of success are a much better predictor of support for war. But how the public thinks about success has been under-theorized. This paper argues that public expectations of success – and by extension support for war – are driven by two different mechanisms that vary based upon the type of conflict a state in fighting. In conventional conflicts, the public relies on objective measures of territorial progress. But in asymmetric conflicts, measures of progress are far more difficult to convey. As a result, the public relies upon casualty counts as an imperfect yet objective measure of how much progress a state in making on the battlefield. Using survey experiments, this paper shows that public expectations of success are both differentiated based upon the type of conflict a state is fighting, and in asymmetric conflicts, informed by reported casualty figures. This produces incentives for leaders to deliberately mislead the public about metrics of success in counterinsurgency campaigns in order to distract public attention from casualty counts. We observe this phenomenon occur across multiple wars, including the most recent conflict in Afghanistan.

Author

• Carrie A Lee, U.S. Army War College