//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts








Loading...
Americans see local consent for U.S. military intervention as not only a “practical concern” but also as a “matter of moral principle,” writes @janinadill.bsky.social.
The list of countries threatened with U.S. military intervention is growing · Venezuela 🇻🇪 · Iran 🇮🇷 · Cuba 🇨🇺 · Greenland 🇬🇱 · Canada 🇨🇦 …just this year! Do they all want "Liberation"? No, I argue in @foreignaffairs.com
In each case, U.S. policy makers claim the local population wants “liberation”. These claims need to be interrogated. Consent to intervention is a powerful moral justification. Local preferences are, in many cases, hard to establish.
Moreover, Americans care about what the local population actually wants. I draw on joint experimental work with Livia Schubiger & Emily Myers, in @intsecurity.bsky.social, which shows that local consent increases public support for military intervention in the United States.
Claiming local consent without evidence it not only morally wrong; it is also bad politics. The piece in @foreignaffairs.com is here: www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state...
Canada 🇨🇦 & Greenland 🇬🇱 In some cases, like Canada and Greenland, we can hear the local population rejecting U.S. military intervention, loud and clear! These potential interventions are correspondingly unpopular in the United States.
The research article in International Security is now open access here:
2d
1d
2d
2d
2d
2d
2d