Military power and political objectives in armed interventions

What effect do political objectives have on the level of force used in military interventions? Studies have found that states seeking to capture and defend territory are most likely to escalate militarized disputes. However, other research holds that conflicts over policy issues increase uncertainty about an opponent’s willingness to resist coercion, obscuring bargains both sides would prefer to fighting. These different findings yield contradictory conclusions about what types of issues should be associated with higher levels of violence. This article contends that the lower levels of force used by states seeking to coerce policy change can be accounted for by the moderating effects of military power. Powerful countries may use low levels of force as a way of gathering information about their opponent’s resolve, primarily when the value of this information offsets the costs of screening a target. This will more often be the case in disputes over policy rather than territory, providing an additional reason why such conflicts exhibit lower levels of force. Conversely, weaker powers are less likely to possess the necessary resources to use limited military operations to reduce uncertainty about opponents, and will use similar levels of force regardless of the object of contention. The preceding argument is supported by an analysis of over 170 military interventions carried out from 1945 to 2001.