The book addresses two practical and timely research concerns: the existence and significance of differences between civilian and military opinions on the commitment and nature of military force. Quantitative (mostly survey data from the Triangle Institute for Security Studies) and qualitative (case studies) data are used to systematically measure opinions about military operations among the civilian and military elites and the public, and to correlate these with national security decisions from 1819 to 1992. The authors anticipate most questions that could be raised about their methods and identify caveats and research questions yet to be addressed. Choosing Your Battles makes both scholarly contributions and intuitive sense.

The data convincingly demonstrate that important differences exist between nonveteran civilian and military elites on the use and nature of military force. While both civilian and military elites support a commitment in cases involving imminent threats to America's vital national interests (termed “realpolitik” scenarios, like the Gulf War), they disagree on whether the deployment should be massive or limited, with nonveteran elites defending restricted intercession. In cases involving interventionist scenarios, such as international human rights or humanitarian ones (like Somalia and Bosnia), military elites (including veterans) are more inclined than nonveteran elites in Congress and the executive branch to support withholding forces. Once a commitment has been made to commit forces, however, military elites are more prone to support overwhelming force (the Powell Doctrine) than are nonveteran civilian elites who defend a more incremental and circumscribed approach.

As to the significance of these differences, the authors contend that the disparities between civilian and military elites have “profoundly shaped” the manner in which the United States has employed military force abroad since 1816 (p. 184). Drawing upon extensive historical data, they conclude that there is a significant relationship between the number of veterans (surrogate measure for military influence) serving in the executive and legislative branches and America's foreign policy commitments: As the proportion of veterans in leadership positions in the federal government increases, the propensity of the United States to initiate the use of force decreases. Moreover, once a militarized commitment is made, the presence of veterans correlates with a higher level of escalation.

The policy implications are threefold. Foremost is the authors' contention that continuing differences of opinion between military and nonveteran civilian elites will undermine civil–military cooperation and, thus, military effectiveness (or success). Of additional concern is the declining number of veterans in Congress and the executive branch. In the absence of a forceful military voice, foreign policymakers may err in decisions to commit troops in a timely fashion and/or impede success by failing to commit sufficiently massive force.

What further obscures military decision making is that foreign policymakers too often are reticent in their response to national security threats because they mistakenly believe that the public cannot tolerate fatalities, according to the authors. Drawing upon public opinion data, they debunk the casualty phobia thesis and demonstrate that the public's reaction to fatalities is not visceral but rational. The public's tolerance for casualties reflects a complex process that involves a rational calculation that factors in ideology, confidence in government, and, most importantly, the likelihood of success. People make “reasoned judgments” about the number of fatalities (costs) they are willing to tolerate, given their perceptions of the importance and likelihood of achieving the goals of a particular military mission (benefits). Moreover, the public's tolerance for casualties is similar for “high-intensity” (such as the defense of South Korea) and “lower-intensity” (such as Iraq and weapons of mass destruction) missions.

The book is carefully researched, meticulously argued, and cogently written. The authors begin each chapter with a summary of previous findings that help situate the new information being introduced. However, scholars and practitioners unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the sophisticated quantitative methods used may find it difficult to stay focused on the thematic contributions, even if these are reiterated numerous times. Since I am one of these people, I am modest in tendering these few questions about the methodology.

The first concerns the authors' testing of the casualty phobia thesis, which is central to their argument. In discrediting the thesis, the authors conclude that most (as many as 70% of) citizens are willing to accept casualties in excess of 500 people if there is the “perception” that the mission will succeed. While this finding makes eminent practical sense, using hypothetical examples to support it is risky, a caveat the authors themselves recognize.

A second concern relates to the presumed influence (as opposed to the confirmed presence) of elite veterans in policymaking situations, also central to the book's conclusions. Two thoughts come to mind. The first concerns Irving Janis's theory of Groupthink. To what extent are advisors, even veterans, so enamored of the president's position and power that they accommodate themselves accordingly? A related thought involves the issue of a critical mass. What the research findings do is confirm the value of having advisors and members of Congress with military experience contribute to decisions about war and military engagements. Regardless of whether one is a dove or hawk on military matters, having the real-life experience that veterans bring to the debate is critical. What is not clear is at what point do veterans have sufficient numerical presence to truly influence civilian leaders? Answering this question is particularly important since the gaps or differences between nonveteran civilian and military elites are “not dramatically large” (p. 6). One final suggestion for future research is to set the findings into the context of a broader theory of national security (particularly crisis) decision making.

Written for an academic audience, the book has a message that is important to legislative and executive decision makers: Be prudent in using military force abroad; consult and consider the advice of the military; employ force requisite to ensuring a successful operation; and convince the American people that the use of force is both justifiable and feasible.