The Wartime Justification Trajectory: A Dynamic Approach to Justifying Wars in the 21st Century

This article proposes a new framework, the “wartime justification trajectory,” for understanding how military interventions are justified and contested over time. Rather than treating legitimacy as something decided only at the start of a war, the model views it as a shifting process shaped by events on the ground, political rhetoric, and public reaction. The wartime justification trajectory outlines four phases—initial justification, conflict dynamics, social reactions, and post-conflict evaluations—that evolve as conflicts progress. Drawing on case studies from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine, the article traces how leaders revised their justifications in response to changing conditions and how public support correspondingly rose or fell. The analysis combines discourse analysis with public opinion data to demonstrate that legitimacy is not fixed but rather constantly renegotiated. By highlighting these recurring phases, the study contributes to ongoing debates in international relations and political communication, offering a practical tool for assessing when and why wars lose the support they initially command.