Public Opinion, the Meaning of Security, and the Use of Force.

A recent conceptual debate has been over “(re-)defining security.” While pushing to the mainstream a variety of issues that can impact the physical safety of a given population, the debate can also lead to analytical problems by lumping many different indicators of threat into one all-encompassing concept. Unfortunately, the debate has often manifested itself over definitional squabbling instead of a true empirical analysis of what the public and policymakers determine to be security threats. It is in practical applications (how states act or think they need to act) that definitions over what constitutes security truly matter. Public opinion literature has looked at how citizens view threats and how this may influence governmental leaders, but not enough work links these findings to the debates on the meaning of security. This paper bridges that divide by analyzing a new data set, the Survey of Attitudes and Global Engagement (SAGE), which asks U.S. citizens about what they perceive as security threats and whether they feel that the use of force is an appropriate response. This paper will 1) examine the degree to which the perceptions of the “new” components of threat have influenced the public, and 2) note any disconnect that may exist between what people perceive as threats and what they are actually willing to risk war over. Thus we can see whether the redefining security debate is purely academic or whether it has influenced Americans’ thinking, which could then have important implications for the behavior of U.S. foreign policy officials. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]