| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Australian government and military have maintained humanitarian interventions for far longer than any comparable U.S. humanitarian intervention. This longevity confounds most traditional international relations theories. It seems that the key variable is public support for humanitarian interventions. The U.S. public quickly grew impatient with humanitarian operations, while the Australian public has not yet done so. Two reasons for the Australian public's forbearance are explored. First, the idea that the Australian military and government are proficient at these operations and that the public supports these operations because it "loves a winner" is found wanting. Second, innate differences between the United States and Australia, particularly regarding news media, are explored; these differences seem to be highly correlated with the longevity of the operations. It seems likely that the Australian public does not hear enough about these operations to be concerned about them or question their utility, efficacy, or cost.
|