- Terrorism affects American public opinion on foreign policy and international affairs. After 9/11, fighting terrorism became a top priority as the US initiated the War on Terror. - Two major events that shaped US foreign policy since WWII were the Cold War and the War on Terror. During the Cold War, the US sought to contain the spread of communism and tensions grew with the Soviet Union. The War on Terror began after 9/11 to combat al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. - Terrorism can influence Americans' views about the importance of international affairs and defense spending. Major attacks often increase concerns about national security and support for a stronger military response.

1. Sutton1
ERIC SUTTON
Dr G
POLS 3760
4/27/16
HOW DOES TERRORISM AFFECT AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION ON US
FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS?

2. Sutton2
Does Terrorism affect the American Populations View on Foreign Policy in regards
towards International Affairs and Defense policies? Foreign Policy, especially military affairs
has been a basic function of the United States Government (US), since before its inception in
1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. According to the Ranger Handbook,
insurgency operations have been a staple of the US warrior culture since at least the French and
Indian War and are still currently utilized by US forces (Ranger Handbook). Military
organizations from Roger’s Rangers through Special Operations Command (SOCOM) have
effectively used insurgency tactics to insert US military objectives on other forces. Two of the
major springboards of foreign affairs in the US since the cessation of World War II (WWII) in
1945 have included the Cold War (CW) and the War on Terrorism (WOT).
The CW was foretold during the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, when the Allies were
discussing the joint occupation of Germany and the tension evident between the two Allied
Nations of the US and Soviet Union (JFK Library & Leffler 349). In Eastern Europe, the Soviet
Union was shepherding various pro-communist regimes, while the US in West Europe was
conducting a policy of containment (JFK Library). The CW would evolve and become extinct
with the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991. The WOT was initiated by the
US with other allies conducting combat operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces
following the attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (9/11).
Although, President Barak Obama has shied away from using the WOT terminology coined by
his predecessor the US has been actively fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda since 9/11. The
purpose of this paper is the exploration of whether terrorist attacks in different areas of the
world, caused the US citizenry to express that their most important concern as being an
international affairs focus and/or a Department of Defense focus.

3. Sutton3
There are two major governmental departments that consists of US foreign policy: the US
Department of State (State) and the US Department of Defense (DOD). There are three major
ways that a nation can display power: 1) through threats of coercion, 2) inducements and
payments, and 3) the attraction of others towards the ideals of others (Nye 94). The next step is
the compare and contrast of the different mission objectives of State and DOD. State’s Mission
Statement from the Department’s website, “Is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just,
and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the
American people and people everywhere” (State). While, the Mission Statement for the DOD
states, “To provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of the
country” (DOD). These are the two US government entities that conveys US power across the
globe through the use of diplomatic strength and the flexing of the US military muscle: soft and
hard power.
There are three major areas that this paper needs to address: 1) American public opinion
about foreign policy, especially regarding the use of military force, 2) the growth and
disintegration of the CW and how the absence of the Soviet Union, as the bilateral partner of the
US, led towards a vacuum that other entities were able to exploit, and 3) terrorism, especially in
the form of the WOT and different terroristic tactics.
US DOD action consists of three major policy objectives, which are: 1) foreign policy
restraint, 2) internal political change, & 3) humanitarian intervention (Jentleson & Britton 395).
Especially since the dissolution of the CW, US military assets have been used for internal
political change in Afghanistan & Iraq and for humanitarian intervention within Somalia &
Kosovo. It has been theorized that after the dissolution of the CW, the world would become
more violent since, there is no longer a bipolar superpower vacuum, while there is a chance for a

4. Sutton4
multipolar or lone superpower power vacuum left in the wake after the CW (Jentleson & Britton
415, Mearsheimer 6-7). When comparing political objectives between nation states and terrorist,
nation-states tend to utilize hard power (air, sea, and land assets), other forms of hard power,
and/or economic sanctions to compel uncompliant nation-states to their will, while terrorist
groups utilize fear and suicide attacks to achieve their political objectives (Pape 344).
American public opinion regarding US Foreign Policy is both complex and simple. The
simplistic nature of public opinion is regarding military and other related issues. However,
complexity arises when the public is neither engaged nor informed about potential foreign policy
initiatives (Powlick & Katz 31). Further research has shown that the complexity is drawn out
when International Affairs are being investigated by polls because roughly 1/3 of respondents
found the foreign affairs stories are often to detached or too confusing for the poll to be
adequately interpreted by the poll taker, which causes issues (Powlick & Katz 33). This
complexity can cause issues because if a policy is not understood how it can be effectively
gauged and therefore be polled?
However, not all researchers have found that American public opinion on foreign policy,
especially DOD spending is difficult. Thomas Hartley & Bruce Russett argued that DOD
spending mirrors what the American public perceives to be the threats towards national security.
There is also a strong evidentiary link towards public opinion and how it influences government
spending, especially military spending (Hartley & Russett 905 & 912). The author of this paper
believes that DOD issues are not as difficult to understand because a vast majority of the
population knows a veteran or someone, who is currently in the Armed Services, which draws
the attention of the American populace towards DOD and IA closer to the person and therefore
more stake within the issue (Powlick & Katz 31).

5. Sutton5
The CW as previously stated was conducted both by the US with NATO and vice versa
by the Soviet Union with the Warsaw Pact as a way to continue to influence vast areas of the
world. The US did not expect the loss of the Eurasia landmass to be through a scenario which
caused vast amounts of Soviet military forces to gain territory within that land mass. The US;
however, fear was directed towards the Soviet effort to influence countries on the adaptation of
communism. This idea was especially evident in areas that were negatively affected by the
conduct of WWII in former Axis powers nation states, such as Germany, Japan, Austria, and
Korea (Leffler 363).
The CW actually possessed the high-water mark in modern American attention to IA and
DOD on public opinion. The Almond-Lipmann Consensus did not yield the expected results
regarding public opinion: it was sporadic and does not have the stability and effectiveness of
foreign policies, no binding or framework, and miniscule or nonexistent impact on foreign policy
(Holsti 439). Although the CW was wrought with small scale violence, the warfare during the
CW was actually less than what occurred in the 45 years prior to it (Mearsheimer 6-7). There
were three factors which scaled down warfare in Europe after WWII, which were: 1) the bipolar
nature of the military alliances within the continent, 2) the military equality of the bipolar forces
of the US with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Soviet Union with the
Warsaw Pact, and 3) both the US and Soviet Union possessed a significant nuclear arsenal and
led the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) (Mearsheimer 6-7).
It was theorized the cessation of the CW and the vacuum that it caused could potentially
lead towards a world in which foreign policy becomes more directed towards the American
populace due to the intricacies of policy initiatives, such as, trade, immigration, and the
environment (Holsi 461, Nye 94). Further evidence has shown that in the conclusive era of the

6. Sutton6
CW different leaders throughout the world, especially Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of
the void by advocating for terroristic attacks against members of the coalition in the Gulf War of
1991 (Walters & Sandler 146). Further the disintegration of the Soviet Union did result in less
state sponsorship of terrorism, because there was less incentive for countries to destabilize the
West. However, not everything was positive result regarding the disintegration of the Soviet
Union with regards towards terrorism. This was true because the breakup allowed “ethnic
hatred” that was prevented from being acted upon while authoritarian regimes were in power to
unleash hatred upon one another (Enders & Sandler 146).
The WOT has also been compared towards the CW in two different ways 1) by
explaining that the Bolsheviks were present as the leadership of the Soviet Union and that of the
current day ones under the guise of Islamic Jihadi terrorist with married political strategy with
pure force and violence and as mentioned before the leadership are highly educated individuals
from middle- to upper-class backgrounds (Diamond 1); and 2) the McCarthy-like tactics used by
the military and policing of terror attacks through guilt by association and due process protection
relaxation towards suspected terrorist and collaborators (Cole 2, 30). Both the CW and the WOT
were/are eras of fear due to things such as nuclear Armageddon (CW), and the possibility of
terror organizations developing/stealing weapons of mass destruction and then deploying and
utilizing them (Cole 2). Terror organizations use fear and intimidation to compel liberal
democracies to relinquish territory and other property to achieve their political goals (Pape 343).
Further issues have developed through the limitation of rights through the convenience of
security to protect the citizenry. The use of preventative law enforcement measures have caused
issues with the credibility of the US. Due process protections have been relaxed through the US

7. Sutton7
use of military custody, immigration detentions, and administrative embargoes to limit terrorist
from achieving their goals (Cole 30).
Terrorism is a function of an individual or organization, which utilizes fear, intimidation,
and political violence towards a state or in the service of a state (Crenshaw 379,). Terrorism has
been linked to various ideologies, which include the rise of nationalism, anarchism, and
revolutionary socialism (Crenshaw 380). Currently terrorism has been sprung upon the world
due to the Islamic Jihadi terrorist organizations, especially in the form of suicide bombings.
There are two major objectives of the terrorist: 1) to gain supporters from a potential sympathetic
population and 2) compel targeted groups to the will and demands of the terror organizations
(Pape 345,). Terrorism has been shown to be more closely correlated towards hate crime than
poverty, and terrorism has also been shown to be linked towards a society that has very stringent
or non-existent civil liberties (Krueger & Melechova 123, 141).
The WOT presents itself with difficult issues, especially because it is still ongoing. An
issue that presents itself within the WOT is when compared to the CW more smart power needs
to be utilized to potentially gain victory. Winning the hearts and minds of the population in
question and not just utilizing hard power, military muscle to gain victory are extremely
important things to address (Nye 94 &107-108). Unfortunately, for military strategic planners
the American public first want to see restraint towards military aggressive posture towards other
nations (Jentleson & Britton 415). The use of terrorism has been linked towards achieving
political goals instead of being a reaction towards poverty and poor education (Diamond 1,
Krueger & Melechova 119, & Crenshaw 379). It has also been theorized that usually terrorist,
especially within the leadership of terrorist organizations have been members of the elite, who
are highly educated, highly disenfranchised from the leadership role in their countries, which has

8. Sutton8
incentivized them towards the path of terrorism, especially with regards towards Osama bin
Laden, the late leader of al-Qaeda (Diamond 1, Krueger & Melechova 123, 142, & Crenshaw
396). Victory in the WOT can only be achieved through the dual process of changing the
political systems to allow human progress in the realm of civil liberties and having the US
military not conduct unilateral military actions, which has caused the world to become
unsympathetic and anti-American (Diamond 6, & Cole 31).
The first hypothesis to be tested is that terror attacks will have a significant effect on the
attention of the American public with regards towards IA. Although, previous research has
shown that public attention has not been focused on foreign affairs, terrorism has been an issue
since at least 1970, which is the year that the database has compiled data.
The second hypothesis to be tested is related to the first, except it changes attention to IA
to attention to DOD. The second hypothesis is that terror attacks will have a significant effect on
the attention granted by the American public with regards towards DOD. The same limitations
are present for DOD that were present for IA.
METHODS
The sources of the data used for this paper were the Global Terrorism Database and the
Public Agenda databases. The Global Terrorism Database includes information from various
terrorist actions around the world from 1970 through 2014, which includes not only international
incidents and domestic ones as well. There are more than 140,000 cases of terrorist incidents
mentioned within the data set (Global Terrorism Database). This database was used because it
has the majority, if not all of the data points that have been labeled as terror attacks since 1970.
Because the Global Terrorism Database did not have any public opinion data another source was
needed.

9. Sutton9
The Public Agenda database is a non-party affiliated organization whose purpose is to
help orient political leaders and the citizenry by providing tools and information to help provide
common ground on various issues and their beneficial resolution. (Public Agenda). This data set
is where the public opinion comes was obtained. Both correlation and regression tests were
conducted to investigate whether terror attacks affected the public’s opinion on IA and Defense.
RESULTS
TABLE 1. Correlation Matrix between number of attacks and attention to International
Affairs (IA)
5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.0868 for n = 510
Number of attacks Attention to IA
1.0000 0.0059 Number of attacks
1.0000 Attention to IA
Table 1 shows no significant correlation between the number of attacks and the attention to IA
because the two tailed critical value is above .05.
TABLE 2. Correlation Matrix between number killed and attention to IA
5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.0868 for n = 510
Number Killed Attention to IA
1.0000 -0.0356 Number Killed
1.00000 Attention to IA
Table 2 shows that there is a negative relationship between the number of people killed in a
terrorist attack compared to the attention of the American population attention on IA; however,
the 5% critical value is above .05 there is no significant relationship.
TABLE 3. Correlation Matrix between number of attacks, killed, and wounded
5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.0868 for n = 510
Number of Attacks Number Killed Number Wounded

10. Sutton10
1.0000 0.6543 0.8774 Number of Attacks
1.0000 0.7566 Number Killed
1.0000 Number Wounded
Table 3 shows no significance between the number of attacks, number killed, and number
wounded because the critical value is not under .05 and therefore it cannot be determined from
this data.
TABLE 4. Correlation Matrix between number of attacks and attention to defense
5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.0868 for n = 510
Number of Attacks Attention to Defense
1.0000 0.0080 Number of Attacks
1.0000 Attention to Defense
Table 4 shows no significance between the number of attacks and attention towards defense
because the critical value is not under .05 and therefore no significance can be determined.
TABLE 5. Regressionbetween attention to IA, number of attacks, and total area
Coefficient STD Error P-value
Attention to IA 0.0400477 0.00122855 3.29e-126 ***
Number of attacks 2.37476e-07 7.73684e-07 0.7590
Every Region -0.00172197 0.00574334 -0.7644
R-Squared 0.000213
*** Significant
Table 5 shows no significance for the attention given to International affairs, with regards
towards the number of attacks and every region of the world.
TABLE 6. Regressionbetween attention to IA, number of attacks, and Various Regions.
Coefficient STD Error P-value
Attention to IA 0.0403434 0.00194695 3.57e-066***
Number of Attacks 3.44292e-07 1.19805e-06 0.7740
Number Killed -8.03459e-06 9.09559e-06 0.3776

11. Sutton11
Number Wounded 1.36120e-07 9.29634e-07 0.8837
Australasia/Oceania 0.00372127 .00756909 0.6232
Eastern Europe 0.00537840 0.00572538 0.3481
Middle East/ N.
Africa
-0.00102711 0.00441857 0.8163
North America -0.000674184 0.00435159 0.8770
Southeast Asia 6.56709e-05 0.00461699 0.9887
Western Europe -0.000875189 0.00440033 0.8424
Mean dependent var 0.040592 S.D. dependent var 0.025137
R-squared 0.005285
Table 6 shows there was no significant variable tested within this regression.
TABLE 7. Regressionfor attention to Defense with Number or Attacks, Number Killed,
Number Wounded & Various Regions
Coefficient STD Error P-value
Attention to IA 0.101253 0.00763052 8.57e-034 ***
Number of Attacks -3.87347e-06 4.69542e-06 0.4099
Number Killed 1.57310e-05 3.56476e-05 0.6592
Number Wounded 2.43503e-06 3.64344e-06 0.5043
Australasia/Oceania 0.00384118 0.0296649 0.8970
Eastern Europe 0.00368324 0.0224390 0.8697
Middle East/ N.
Africa
0.00100729 0.0173173 0.9536
North America 0.00125288 0.0170548 0.9415
Southeast Asia -0.000438933 0.0172459 0.8567
Western Europe -0.00311722 0.0172459 0.8567
Mean dependent var 0.101569 S.D. dependent var 0.098426
R-squared 0.003408
Table 7 shows that there was no significant independent variables with regards towards attention
to defense and terrorist attacks, even in regards towards different regions.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, because of the results that were obtained the study was unable to reject the
null hypothesis that terroristic attacks had no affect on the public opinion regarding DOD and IA
because the p value was never under .05. Further, the data available made it difficult to properly
test different questions that arose during the research process because poll data was not available

12. Sutton12
for questions, such as, “Did terrorist attacks affect the American public’s perception of foreign
policy”? Terrorism or insurgency depending how each is defined and/or used has been a part of
warfare since the beginning of time. US military forces have even utilized insurgency tactics
throughout the history of the US beginning even while the US was still a British colony.
Another question that was thought of, but did not have datasets was did the public support the
fighting of terrorism by criminal prosecution, akin to President William J. Clinton, or as military
operations, akin to Presidents George W. Bush and President Barack H. Obama? Further,
another question that was perceived was did terrorism affect the priority of International Affairs
and Defense compared and contrasted between the Cold War and WOT eras?
The WOT is currently one of the most important issues in US foreign policy. For this
author it is one of the most important political issue within the platform of US politics in general.
The Global Terrorism Database dataset came to life when the author observed the April 6, 2012
attack, which killed Cpl. Blackburn in Ghazni, Afghanistan, as well as wounded SGT Frye, a
personal friend to the author of this paper within the data. This is why this topic and research
became extremely personal to the author.

13. Sutton13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cole, David. "The new McCarthyism: Repeating history in the war on terrorism. "Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 38 (2003).
Crenshaw, Martha. "The causes of terrorism." Comparative politics 13.4 (1981): 379-399.
Cuordileone, Kyle A. "" Politics in an age of anxiety": Cold War political culture and the crisis
in American masculinity, 1949-1960." The Journal of American History 87.2 (2000): 515-545.
Department of Defense website, http://www.defense.gov/About-DoD.
Department of State website, http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm#mission.
Diamond, Larry. "Winning The New Cold War on Terrorism." Institute for Global Democracy
Policy Paper (2002).
Enders, Walter, and Todd Sandler. "Transnational terrorism in the post–Cold War
era." International Studies Quarterly 43.1 (1999): 145-167.
Global Terrorism Database. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/.
Handbook, Ranger. "Fort Benning." GA: United States Army Infantry School, Ranger
Department (2013).
Holsti, Ole R. "Public opinion and foreign policy: challenges to the Almond-Lippmann
Consensus Mershon Series: research programs and debates."International studies
quarterly (1992): 439-466.
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Rebecca L. Britton. "Still Pretty Prudent Post-Cold War American
Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force." Journal of Conflict Resolution 42.4 (1998): 395-
417.
JFK Presidential Library website, http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Cold-
War.aspx
Krueger, Alan B., and Jitka Malečková. "Education, poverty and terrorism: Is there a causal
connection?." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17.4 (2003): 119-144.
Leffler, Melvyn P. "The American Conception of National Security and the Beginnings of the
Cold War, 1945-48." The American Historical Review (1984): 346-381.
Mearsheimer, John J. "Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold
War." International security 15.1 (1990): 5-56.

14. Sutton14
Pape, Robert A. "The strategic logic of suicide terrorism." American political science
review 97.03 (2003): 343-361.
Powlick, Philip J., and Andrew Z. Katz. "Defining the American public opinion/foreign policy
nexus." Mershon International Studies Review42.Supplement 1 (1998): 29-61.
Public Agenda. http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/who-we-are.