The public deploys the troops? Public opinion and public deliberation over United States military involvement in Somalia

From December 1992 to March 1994, the United States engaged in peacekeeping operations in the war-torn, famine-stricken nation of Somalia. Military interventions, such as this one, provide an interesting intersection between rhetoric, public deliberation theorizing, and media studies. When considered, the foreign policy public is often regarded as merely the audience to whom the rhetoric or media coverage is addressed. How the public is shaped or created by foreign policy discourse, including media discourse, has been largely ignored. Yet, the justifications and explanations of military actions often are portrayed as answers to public concerns or motivations. Drawing upon recent theorization by Jurgen Habermas, Joshua Cohen, and others, this dissertation examines how rhetoric, media coverage, and the public intersected during U.S. military operations in Somalia.;In the first phase, primarily encompassing the December 1992 deployment, a vision of a public who supports deployment gets created. An image of an active public emerges; the debate over Somalia is accepted as having already occurred. This assumption of public debate becomes a legitimating factor for the deployment. During the second phase, the lack of a clearly defined mission complicates media coverage, producing an unclear image of the public. The third phase, covering the October 1993 firefight through the U.S. withdrawal, includes media accounts that note the public's outrage over American casualties and its demand for withdrawal. The overall picture leaves the public visible as an entity, but without a deliberating role, merely reacting to events and statements.;This study finds that while public deliberation is valued, the interaction of press and public opinion makes public deliberation all but meaningless. Public deliberation as an ideal has both practical and theoretical problems. Where public deliberation holds sway is as an ideal. The image of a public weighing in on pressing foreign policy actions is powerful. Yet, the function of public deliberation in foreign policy making becomes one of mere appearance in order to supply legitimation or de-legitimation for institutional actors.