IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v70y2026i4p690-719.html

Military Experience and Casualty Sensitivity in Elite Discourse: Evidence From the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Kenwick
  • Sumin Lee
  • Burcu Kolcak

Abstract

Veterans are disproportionately represented among political elites, and the question of whether military experience shapes their behavior is a central puzzle in the study of international relations. Existing theories link military experience with hawkish or dovish foreign policy preferences. Rather than determining their positions on the use of force ex ante, we argue that domain-specific knowledge and their elevated social status will make veterans less likely to change their expressed positions, especially in response to wartime casualties. We test our argument by analyzing Congressional speeches referencing the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, finding strong support for our expectations. Our core insight is that veteran politicians are partisans first and veterans second, and that military experience may say more about how they update, rather than establish, their political positions.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Kenwick & Sumin Lee & Burcu Kolcak, 2026. "Military Experience and Casualty Sensitivity in Elite Discourse: Evidence From the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 70(4), pages 690-719, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:70:y:2026:i:4:p:690-719
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027251365535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027251365535
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027251365535?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monroe, Burt L. & Colaresi, Michael P. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2008. "Fightin' Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 372-403.
    2. Dino P. Christenson & Douglas L. Kriner, 2017. "Mobilizing the Public Against the President: Congress and the Political Costs of Unilateral Action," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(4), pages 769-785, October.
    3. Douglas Kriner & Francis Shen, 2014. "Responding to War on Capitol Hill: Battlefield Casualties, Congressional Response, and Public Support for the War in Iraq," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 157-174, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Turner, Ian R, 2021. "Policy Durability, Agency Capacity, and Executive Unilateralism," SocArXiv stnzf, Center for Open Science.
    2. Jacob Jensen & Ethan Kaplan & Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson, 2012. "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 45(2 (Fall)), pages 1-81.
    3. Michael C. Horowitz & Sarah Maxey, 2026. "Morally opposed? A theory of public attitudes and emerging military technologies," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(1), pages 58-80, January.
    4. Vicinanza, Paul & Goldberg, Amir & Srivastava, Sameer, 2021. "Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery," OSF Preprints 3h8xp, Center for Open Science.
    5. repec:osf:osfxxx:ghxj8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Dittmar, Jeremiah & Seabold, Skipper, 2015. "Media, markets and institutional change: evidence from the Protestant Reformation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63814, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. MacKenzie Caputo & Max Fineman & Shamus Khan, 2024. "Sexual assault and the matrix of harm: Sexual assault survivors narrate their whole lives in more negative ways," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-27, June.
    8. Dittmar, Jeremiah & Seabold, Skipper, 2019. "New media and competition: printing and Europe's transformation after Gutenberg," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. van Loon, Austin, 2022. "Three Families of Automated Text Analysis," SocArXiv htnej, Center for Open Science.
    10. Ash, Elliott & Gauthier, Germain & Widmer, Philine, 2024. "Relatio: Text Semantics Capture Political and Economic Narratives," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 115-132, January.
    11. Jaehyuk Park, 2024. "Analyzing the direct role of governmental organizations in artificial intelligence innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 437-465, April.
    12. Stef M Shuster & Celeste Campos-Castillo & Navid Madani & Kenneth Joseph, 2024. "Who supports Bernie? Analyzing identity and ideological variation on Twitter during the 2020 democratic primaries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Sarah Kreps & Sarah Maxey, 2018. "Mechanisms of Morality," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(8), pages 1814-1842, September.
    14. repec:osf:socarx:stnzf_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. H. Andrew Schwartz & Lyle H. Ungar, 2015. "Data-Driven Content Analysis of Social Media," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 659(1), pages 78-94, May.
    16. Alexander Herzog & Slava Mikhaylov, 2010. "A new Database of Parliamentary Debates in Ireland, 1922--2008," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp338, IIIS, revised Jul 2010.
    17. Block, Ray & Burnham, Michael & Kahn, Kayla & Peng, Rachel & Seeman, Jeremy & Seto, Christopher, 2022. "Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    18. repec:osf:osfxxx:3h8xp_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ana Lorena Jiménez-Preciado & Mario Alejandro Durán-Saldivar & Salvador Cruz-Aké & Francisco Venegas-Martínez, 2025. "Hawkish or Dovish? That Is the Question: Agentic Retrieval of FED Monetary Policy Report," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Gavin Abercrombie & Riza Batista-Navarro, 2020. "Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 245-270, April.
    21. Jonathan B Slapin & Sven-Oliver Proksch, 2010. "Look who’s talking: Parliamentary debate in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 333-357, September.
    22. Jeremiah Dittmar & Skipper Seabold, 2019. "New media and competition: printing and Europe's transformation after Gutenberg," CEP Discussion Papers dp1600, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    23. David N. Matzig & Clemens Schmid & Felix Riede, 2023. "Mapping the field of cultural evolutionary theory and methods in archaeology using bibliometric methods," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:70:y:2026:i:4:p:690-719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.