The militarization of security enjoys strong popular support in various crime-ridden countries. Yet, we know little about the determinants of such support. Do people support militarization even in the face of human fatalities? We tackle this question in the context of Mexico's “war on drugs." In three experimental studies, we manipulate the presence of human costs in a military operation against a drug lord and present arguments either justifying or condemning these costs. We consistently find that, even in successful operations, support for militarization decreases when military operations involve civilian casualties, but not when casualties are cartel-related. This finding holds both for victims and non-victims of cartel-related violence. Yet, arguments that justify these costs in light of the goal of eradicating organized crime increase support. These findings shed light on the public opinion side of the militarization of security debate, with important implications for security policy reform and democratic politics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J. et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: