January 20, 2005

Jide Nzelibe

Observer Q & A / Assistant professor of law discusses what happens when public opinion turns against a military action.

Stephen Anzaldi

Nzelibe was born in the United States, left for Nigeria as a child and returned before college. One of the reasons, he states, for his academic interests, especially in developing countries and agricultural issues, has to do with growing up in a family of farmers in eastern Nigeria.

He discusses his scholarly work with Pat Vaughan Tremmel, assistant director of media relations and law and social sciences editor, University Relations.

What are your research interests?

My research interests include international and foreign relations law. I’ve written on multinational investment and the relationship between domestic interest groups in the World Trade Organization.

With my work on foreign relations, I’m usually trying to explain how the separation of foreign affairs powers actually works, as in a piece I am finishing that looks at the division of authority between Congress and the president on war powers.

I’m interested in how decisions are actually made as opposed to how they should be made. When is the president likely to seek congressional approval for use of force?

I suggest that public opinion polls play a role as well as the risk of military failure. 

That, of course, brings Iraq to mind.

Yes, in the piece I’m writing, I’m looking at specific issues in six or seven conflicts, including Iraq.

What happens when negative public opinion polls turn against the conflict? Does the president pull out or escalate? What does Congress do?

I see certain patterns over a 20-, 25-year period. Before the Iraqi conflict, public opinion supported the war. It never quite hit 60 percent, but it was almost always higher than 50 percent. There was a sense that war was inevitable, and when the ground war was concluded quickly without significant casualties, the public perception was that everything was under control.

During March 2003, when the ground war took place, public opinion never went under 70 percent. After that month, when the military couldn’t keep the peace, public opinion started dropping, by July 2003 to pre-war levels of around 50 percent. It jumped again in December 2003 after Saddam Hussein was captured, and it stayed high through early January 2004.

The reason congressional reaction to Iraq has been somewhat tepid is because rarely does Congress try to get a president to pull out before opinion polls drop below 40 percent for two months straight.

What are the broad strokes of your article?

I’m writing about the consequences of public opinion polls for congressional involvement and make the suggestion that the president has a unique ability to frame public opinion for use-of-force issues, whereas Congress is more apt to react to public opinion.

If the president is in the shadow of a recent unpopular use of force, and he is trying to mobilize and use force again, he’s usually very vulnerable. Congress can capitalize on that. 

After the Vietnam War, for example, Congress was powerful in constraining the president’s authority, but use-of-force issues gained great momentum after 9/11.

Congress is now less willing to constrain, to be as active as it used to be. Somalia was a classic example. In the last years of President George H. W. Bush’s administration and the beginning of President Bill Clinton’s, the United States’ intervention in Somalia was extremely popular with Americans. Then certain things happened that made that intervention unpopular, and President Clinton’s efforts to mobilize public opinion so he could stay in Somalia for the long run was unsuccessful. Congress hit back and threatened to cut off funding. 

Looking at the Iraq situation now, I wonder what the likelihood is that Congress is going to intervene. You need to look at the trend of public opinion polls regarding support for the president and Iraq in the past couple years. If public opinion polls fall below 40 percent over a two-month period, the likelihood of congressional intervention will increase.

Why do presidents seem to fight so hard for use of force?

Presidents never like to lose. The president knows if he pulls out of a war in the face of negative public opinion, he could get clobbered electorally.

The public will want to know: Why did you go into a war when you can’t win? The public does not like to believe that their president is incompetent on war issues, because that makes the United States look incompetent.