Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:14:00.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unleashing the watchdogs: explaining congressional assertiveness in the politics of US military interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2018

Florian Böller Open the ORCID record for Florian Böller [Opens in a new window]  and
Marcus Müller
Florian Böller*
Affiliation:
Heidelberg Center for American Studies (HCA), Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Marcus Müller
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science II, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
*
*E-mail: fboeller@hca.uni-heidelberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to a burgeoning literature on parliamentary war powers by investigating the case of the US Congress drawing on both International Relations (IR) research and traditional war powers studies. Applying a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and case study method, we examine the conditions shaping congressional assertiveness. The article shows that the lack of national security interests and divided government are important conditions for members of Congress to criticize presidential intervention policies. While previous US war powers studies focused on the influence of partisanship, this article holds that domestic as well as international factors influence congressional behavior. A short comparative case study of two US military interventions (Libya 2011, ISIS 2014–15) during the Obama presidency serves to illustrate the findings.

Keywords

war powersUS Congressmilitary interventionsBarack ObamafsQCA
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 637 - 662
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bendery, J. (2015), ‘Congress just voted to fund the war against ISIS. Did they authorize it, too?’ Huffington Post, 18 December. Retrieved 5 September 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-war-authorization-isis_us_56743423e4b 0b958f656590a.Google Scholar
Bretthauer, J.M. (2015), ‘Conditions for peace and conflict: applying a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to cases of resource scarcity’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 59(4): 593–616.Google Scholar
Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B. (2015), ‘From mass preference to policy’, Annual Review of Political Science 18: 147–165.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2007), ‘The democracy crusade myth’, National Interest 90: 8–12.Google Scholar
Carter, R.G. and Scott, J.M. (2009), Choosing to Lead. Understanding Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Chivvis, C.S. and Liepman, A.M. (2016), Authorities for Military Operations Against Terrorist Groups. The State of the Debate and Options for Congress, Washington, DC: Rand.Google Scholar
Chojnacki, S., Herchenbach, M. and Reisch, G. (2009), ‘Perspectives on war. Disentangling distinct phenomena: wars and military interventions, 1990-2008’, Sicherheit und Frieden 27(4): 242–251.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1994), ‘Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress’. Retrieved 2 August 2018 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (2007), ‘Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress’. Retrieved 2 August 2018 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (2011), ‘Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress’. Retrieved 2 August 2018 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (2014), ‘Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress’. Retrieved 2 August 2018 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (2015), ‘Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress’. Retrieved 2 August 2018 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.Google Scholar
Dieterich, S., Hummel, H. and Marschall, S. (2015), ‘Bringing democracy back in: the democratic peace, parliamentary war powers, and European participation in the 2003 Iraq war’, Cooperation and Conflict 50(1): 87–106.Google Scholar
Duşa, A. (2007), ‘User manual for the QCA(GUI) package in R’, Journal of Business Research 60(5): 576–586.Google Scholar
Eichenberg, R.C. (2005), ‘Victory has many friends: U.S. public opinion and the use of military force, 1981-2005’, International Security 30(1): 140–177.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. (2004), Presidential War Power, Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Geis, A., Müller, H. and Schörnig, N. (2013), ‘Liberal democracies as militant “Forces for Good”: a comparative perspective, in A. Geis, H. Müller and N. Schörnig (eds) The Militant Face of Democracy. Liberal Forces for Good, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–344.Google Scholar
Gibler, D. (2010), ‘Outside-In: the effects of external threat on state centralization’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 54(4): 519–542.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. and Waxman, M. (2016), ‘The legal legacy of light-footprint warfare’, Washington Quarterly 39(2): 7–21.Google Scholar
Gourevitch, P. (1978), ‘The second image reversed: the international sources of domestic politics’, International Organization 32(4): 881–912.Google Scholar
Graham, T. (1994), ‘Public opinion and U.S. foreign policy decision making, in W. Lance Bennett and D.A. Deese (eds) The New Politics of American Foreign Policy, New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 190–215.Google Scholar
Haas, P. (2017), ‘Does it even work? A theoretical and practical evaluation of the war powers resolution’, Congress and the Presidency 44(2): 235–258.Google Scholar
Haesebrouck, T. (2018), Democratic participation in the air strikes against Islamic state: a qualitative comparative analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis 14(2): 254–275.Google Scholar
Haesebrouck, T. (2017), ‘NATO burden sharing in Libya: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(10): 2235–2261.Google Scholar
Hegre, H. (2014), ‘Democracy and armed conflict’, Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 159–172.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, R.C. (2002), The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, R.C. (2015), Obama at War: Congress and the Imperial Presidency, Lexington, KT: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, R.C. and Juszczak, L. (2017), ‘Dennis Kucinich and expansion of the chief executive’s war power: a unique legacy of checking the commander in chief’, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 11(3): 50–56.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, T., Hillebrecht, C., Holm, P.M. and Pevehouse, J. (2013), ‘The domestic politics of humanitarian intervention: public opinion, partisanship, and ideology’, Foreign Policy Analysis 9(3): 243–266.Google Scholar
House Armed Service Committee (HASC) (2014), Administration Strategy for ISIL. Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services. HASC No. 113-126, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) (2015), Growing Strategic Threat of ISIS: Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. HFAC No. 114-17, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Howell, W.G. and Pevehouse, J.C. (2007), While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Howell, W.G. and Kriner, D. (2009), ‘Congress, the President, and the Iraq War’s domestic political front, in L.C. Dodd and B.I. Oppenheimer (eds) Congress Reconsidered, Washington, DC: Sage, pp. 311–335.Google Scholar
Jentleson, B.W. and Britton, R.L. (1998), ‘Still pretty prudent: post-cold war American public opinion on the use of military force’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(4): 395–417.Google Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (2015), ‘A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR theory’, International Studies Review 17(2): 189–216.Google Scholar
Kaarbo, J. and Kenealy, D. (2017), ‘Precedents, parliaments, and foreign policy: historical analogy in the house of commons vote on Syria’, West European Politics 40(1): 62–79.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1796), Project for a Perpetual Peace. Translated from the German, London: Vernor and Hood.Google Scholar
Klarevas, L.J., Gelpi, C. and Reifler, J. (2006), ‘Casualties, polls, and the Iraq War’, International Security 31(2): 186–198.Google Scholar
Kriner, D. (2010), After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, J.M. (2004), ‘From deference to activism and back again: congress and the politics of American foreign policy, in E.R. Wittkopf and J.M. McCormick (eds) The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 183–196.Google Scholar
MacMillan, J. (2004), ‘Whose democracy; which peace? Contextualizing the democratic peace’, International Politics 41(4): 472–493.Google Scholar
Mann, T.E. and Ornstein, N.J. (2006), The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mello, P.A. (2014), Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict: Military Involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mello, P.A. and Peters, D. (2018), ‘Parliaments in security policy: involvement, politicisation, and influence’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Meernik, J. and Oldmixon, E. (2004), ‘Internationalism in congress’, Political Research Quarterly 57(3): 451–465.Google Scholar
Milner, H.V. and Tingley, D. (2015), Sailing the Water’s Edge: American Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. (2005), ‘The Iraq syndrome. The war and the public’, Foreign Affairs 84(6): 44–54.Google Scholar
Müller, H. (2014), ‘Evilization in liberal discourse: from Kant’s “Unjust Enemy” to today’s “Rogue state”’, International Politics 51(4): 475–491.Google Scholar
Peters, D. and Wagner, W. (2011), ‘Between military efficiency and democratic legitimacy: mapping parliamentary war powers in contemporary democracies, 1989-2004’, Parliamentary Affairs 64(1): 175–192.Google Scholar
Pew (2017), ‘Partisans have starkly different opinions about how the world views the U.S.’. Retrieved 10 April 2018 from http://www.people-press.org/2017/11/09/partisans-have-starkly-different-opinions-about-how-the-world-views-the-u-s.Google Scholar
Pickering, J. and Kisangani, E.F. (2005), ‘Democracy and diversionary military intervention: reassessing regime type and the diversionary hypothesis’, International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 23–43.Google Scholar
Polling Report (2016), ‘Foreign affairs and defense issues’. Retrieved 5 September 2016 from http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm.Google Scholar
Poznansky, M. (2015), ‘Stasis or decay? Reconciling covert war and the democratic peace’, International Studies Quarterly 51(4): 815–826.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2017), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 3.4.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Raunio, T. and Wagner, W. (2017), ‘Towards parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy?’, West European Politics 40(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1991), ‘Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies’, World Politics 43(4): 479–512.Google Scholar
Russett, B.M. and Oneal, J.R. (2001), Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Sarkesian, S.C., Williams, J.A. and Cimbala, S.J. (2008), U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes & Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, A.M. (2004), The Imperial Presidency: With a New Introduction, Boston, MA/New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. (2018), ‘Realists and idealists in QCA’. Political Analysis 26(2): 246–254.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Rohlfing, I. (2013), ‘Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research’, Sociological Methods & Research 42(4): 559–597.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2012), Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2013), ‘Doing justice to logical remainders in QCA: moving beyond the standard analysis’, Political Research Quarterly 66(1): 211–220.Google Scholar
Senate Armed Services Committee (2014), Testimony on U.S. Policy Towards Iraq and Syria and the Threat Posed by ISIL, Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services. SASC No. 113-66, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) (2014), United States Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. SFRC No. 113-668, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) (2015), Presidents’ AUMF Proposal, Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations. SFRC No. 114-90, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Stahl, B., Lucke, R. and Felfeli, A. (2016), ‘Comeback of the transatlantic security community? Comparative securitisation in the crimea crisis’, East European Politics 32(4): 525–546.Google Scholar
Torreon, B.S. (2017), Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2017, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Trubowitz, P. and Mellow, N. (2011), ‘Foreign policy, bipartisanship and the paradox of post-September 11 America’, International Politics 48(2/3): 164–187.Google Scholar
Wagemann, C., Buche, J. and Siewert, M.B. (2015), ‘QCA and business research: work in progress or a consolidated agenda?’, Journal of Business Research 69(7): 2531–2540.Google Scholar
Weed, M.W. (2016), A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Weissman, S.R. (1995), A Culture of Deference: Congress’s Failure of Leadership in Foreign Policy, New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Weissman, S.R. (2017), ‘Congress and war. How the house and the senate can reclaim their role’, Foreign Affairs 96(1): 132–145.Google Scholar
Weldes, J. (1999), ‘The cultural production of crisis: U.S. identity and missiles in Cuba, in J. Weldes, M. Laffey, H. Gusterson and R. Duvall (eds) Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 35–62.Google Scholar
White House (2011), ‘Letter from the President Regarding the Commencement of Operations in Libya’, Press release, 21 March 2011. Retrieved 5 September 2016 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya.Google Scholar
White House (2014), ‘President Barack Obama: Remarks at a Press Conference’, Press release, 23 September 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2016 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-regarding-iraq.Google Scholar
White House (2015), ‘Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address’, Press release, 20 January 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2016 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015.Google Scholar
Zelizer, J.E. (2010), ‘Congress and the politics of troop withdrawal’, Diplomatic History 34(3): 529–541.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Böller and Müller supplementary material

Böller and Müller supplementary material 1

Download Böller and Müller supplementary material(File)
File 108.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Böller and Müller supplementary material 2

Böller and Müller supplementary material 2

Download Böller and Müller supplementary material 2(File)
File 860 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Böller and Müller supplementary material 3

Böller and Müller supplementary material 3

Download Böller and Müller supplementary material 3(File)
File 39.8 KB