War by Any Other Name? Humanitarian Frames & Expected Military Outcomes

• In Event: Identity Frames, Standing, and Conflict

Abstract

Presidents consistently offer humanitarian justifications for military action, even when explaining operations focused on more traditional national security goals. Leaders use humanitarian rationales because they are an effective tool for mobilizing the domestic audience. Humanitarian frames garner high levels of support in public opinion polls (Chicago Council 2014), create a bipartisan sense of moral obligation (Kreps and Maxey 2018), and build the largest possible domestic coalition of support (Maxey 2019). Because humanitarian appeals build support by activating powerful and unique moral mechanisms, their presence may shift not only public approval but also public expectations about how the intervention will be carried out and what objectives will be achieved. Once mobilized, does the public evaluate humanitarian efforts with the same standards used to assess security operations? Or do humanitarian frames create pressure for humanitarian outcomes?

The paper uses a series of survey experiments to examine how the content of leaders’ justifications—humanitarian or security frames—influences public perceptions of intervention outcomes. The first experiment demonstrates how humanitarian frames shift the public’s definition of a successful operation. The second experiment evaluates whether humanitarian justifications moderate factors expected to decrease public support: civilian and military casualties, financial costs, and the prospects for long-term stability in the target state. The findings show that humanitarian frames move the goalposts for success and moderate the political risk associated with military action. These results highlight the policy implications of both leaders’ rhetoric and evolving humanitarian norms.

Author

• Sarah Maxey, Loyola University Chicago