Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:57:48.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secret but Constrained: The Impact of Elite Opposition on Covert Operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2019

Gregory L. Smith
Get access

Abstract

Recent international relations scholarship has argued that political elites constrain the use of military force by democracies. Despite the persuasiveness of this research, scholars have largely ignored elite dynamics’ ability to constrain the initiation of covert operations. This omission is consequential because scholars of US foreign policy often assume that covert operations serve as a substitute for the overt use of force; secrecy allows leaders to limit information to congressional elites and thus weaken their oversight capabilities. Do elite political dynamics constrain presidents’ ability to act secretly or do they affect the overt use of force only? I argue that elite political constraints—particularly opposition from Congress—extend to the president's ability to initiate covert operations. By examining the trade-off between US military force and CIA-initiated covert operations during the Cold War, I find the likelihood that covert operations are initiated decreases significantly during periods of divided government and that there is no distinguishable trade-off between covert operations and overt military force. The results suggest that constraints on covert operations became more uniform across unified and divided government following congressional oversight reforms in 1975 that reduced the information asymmetry between the majority and minority party. These findings have important ramifications for the nascent literature on back-door bargaining and covert signalling. Because democratic leaders frequently face domestic political costs even when acting in secret, covert operations should allow leaders to credibly convey their resolve.

Type
Research Note
Information
International Organization , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , Summer 2019 , pp. 685 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baum, Matthew A., and Potter, Philip B.K.. 2015. War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beleinson, Anthony. 1991. 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. 101st Congress.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Nordstrom, Timothy. 2000. Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (1):33–61.Google Scholar
Berger, Daniel, Easterly, William, Nunn, Nathan, and Satyanath, Shanker. 2013. Commercial Imperialism? Political Influence and Trade During the Cold War. The American Economic Review 103 (2):863–96.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2007. Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for Military Conflict. Journal of Politics 69 (4):975–97.Google Scholar
Blum, William. 1986. The CIA: A Forgotten History: US Global Interventions Since World War 2. Zed Books.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, and Miller, Douglas L.. 2014. Robust Inference for Dyadic Data. Unpublished manuscript, University of California-Davis.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1986. Presidential Coattails and Midterm Losses in State Legislative Elections. American Political Science Review 80 (1):45–63.Google Scholar
Carson, Austin. 2016. Facing Off and Saving Face: Covert Intervention and Escalation Management in the Korean War. International Organization 70 (1):103–31.Google Scholar
Carson, Austin, and Yarhi-Milo, Keren. 2017. Covert Communication: The Intelligibility and Credibility of Signaling in Secret. Security Studies 26 (1):124–56.Google Scholar
Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data. Political Analysis 18 (3):271–92.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P., and Kriner, Douglas L.. 2017. Mobilizing the Public Against the President: Congress and the Political Costs of Unilateral Action. American Journal of Political Science 61 (4):769–85.Google Scholar
Clark, David H., and Reed, William. 2005. The Strategic Sources of Foreign Policy Substitution. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3):609–24.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2007. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crandall, Christian, Cox, Owen, Beasley, Ryan, and Omelicheva, Mariya. 2018. Covert Operations, Wars, Detainee Destinations, and the Psychology of Democratic Peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (5):929–56.Google Scholar
Downes, Alexander B., and Lilley, Mary Lauren. 2010. Overt Peace, Covert War? Covert Intervention and the Democratic Peace. Security Studies 19 (2):266–306.Google Scholar
Downes, Alexander B., and O'Rourke, Lindsey A.. 2016. You Can't Always Get What You Want: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Seldom Improves Interstate Relations. International Security 41 (2):43–89.Google Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and Menger, Andrew. 2015. Practical and Effective Approaches to Dealing with Clustered Data. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (3):577–92.Google Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O. 2002. Another Look at Parties, Voters, and the Use of Force Abroad. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (4):572–96.Google Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O., and Sarver, Christopher C.. 2001. Militarized Interstate Disputes and United States Uses of Force. International Studies Quarterly 45 (3):455–66.Google Scholar
Forsythe, David P. 1992. Democracy, War, and Covert Action. Journal of Peace Research 29 (4):385–95.Google Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, and Jenkins, Jeffery A.. 2007. Negative Agenda Control in the Senate and House: Fingerprints of Majority Party Power. The Journal of Politics 69 (3):689–700.Google Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher, and Grieco, Joseph M.. 2015. Competency Costs in Foreign Affairs: Presidential Performance in International Conflicts and Domestic Legislative Success, 1953–2001. American Journal of Political Science 59 (2):440–56.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M., Miller, Steven V., and Little, Erin K.. 2016. An Analysis of the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Dataset, 1816–2001. International Studies Quarterly 60 (4):719–30.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt. 2006. Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):34–48.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1998. Politics at the Water's Edge: Parties, Voters, and the Use of Force Abroad. International Organization 52 (2):307–24.Google Scholar
Grimmett, Richard F. 2007. Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving US Military Forces and Overseas Deployments. Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Lee, and Inouye, Daniel K.. 1987. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair: With Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views, vol. 100. US House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran.Google Scholar
Hermann, Margaret G., and Kegley, Charles W.. 1995. Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology. International Studies Quarterly 39 (4):511–33.Google Scholar
Howell, William G., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2005. Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force. International Organization 59 (1):209–32.Google Scholar
Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. 2014. The CIA and American Democracy. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Loch K. 1989. Covert Action and Accountability: Decision-Making for America's Secret Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly 33 (1):81–109.Google Scholar
Johnson, Loch K. 2013. National Security Intelligence. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jones, Howard. 2010. The Bay of Pigs. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Michael F., and Poznansky, Michael. 2018. Media Technology, Covert Action, and the Politics of Exposure. Journal of Peace Research 55 (3):320–35.Google Scholar
Kriner, Douglas L., and Schickler, Eric. 2014. Investigating the President: Committee Probes and Presidential Approval, 1953–2006. The Journal of Politics 76 (2):521–34.Google Scholar
Kriner, Douglas L., and Schickler, Eric. 2016. Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. 2017. margins: Marginal Effects for Model Objects. R package version 0.3.0.Google Scholar
Levin, Dov H. 2016. When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results. International Studies Quarterly 60 (2):189–202.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28 (1):165–79.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. Sailing the Water's Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin A., and Starr, Harvey. 1984. International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability, and Nice Laws. World Politics 36 (3):383–406.Google Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan. 2015. Scandal Potential: How Political Context and News Congestion Affect the President's Vulnerability to Media Scandal. British Journal of Political Science 45 (2):435–66.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Lindsey A. 2013. Secrecy and Security: US-Orchestrated Regime Change During the Cold War. PhD diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W., and Job, Brian L.. 1986. The President and the Political Use of Force. American Political Science Review 80 (2):541–66.Google Scholar
Palmer, Glenn, and Bhandari, Archana. 2000. The Investigation of Substitutability in Foreign Policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (1):3–10.Google Scholar
Poznansky, Michael. 2015. Stasis or Decay? Reconciling Covert War and the Democratic Peace. International Studies Quarterly 59 (4):815–26.Google Scholar
Regan, Patrick M. 2000. Substituting Policies During US Interventions in Internal Conflicts: A Little of This, a Little of That. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (1):90–106.Google Scholar
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585–602.Google Scholar
Rottinghaus, Brandon. 2015. The Institutional Effects of Executive Scandals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1994. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth N. 2015. War and the Inner Circle: Democratic Elites and the Politics of Using Force. Security Studies 24 (3):466–501.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965. In Peace, War, and Numbers, edited by Russett, Bruce M., 19–48. Sage.Google Scholar
Spaniel, William, and Poznansky, Michael. 2018. Credible Commitment in Covert Affairs. American Journal of Political Science 62 (3):668–81.Google Scholar
Starr, Harvey. 2000. Substitutability in Foreign Policy: Theoretically Central, Empirically Elusive. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (1):128–38.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2007. Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach. International Organization 61 (4):821–40.Google Scholar
Treverton, Gregory. 1987. Covert Action: The Limits of Intervention in the Postwar World. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1991. American Intervention in the Third World: Less Would Be Better. Security Studies 1 (1):1–24.Google Scholar
Van Wagenen, James S. 1997. Critics and Defenders: A Review of Congressional Oversight. Studies in Intelligence 1 (1):97–102.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Smith supplementary material

Smith supplementary material 1

Download Smith supplementary material(File)
File 792 KB