Advocacy Coalitions and Foreign Policy Change: Understanding US Responses to the Syrian Civil War

Abstract

AbstractInsights from the public policy advocacy coalition framework (ACF) may offer richer explanations of the scope and timing of US foreign policy changes toward the Syrian civil war (2011–present) than traditional approaches in foreign policy analysis (FPA). This article surveys the existing FPA literature and then probes the plausibility of a new ACF model of change through case studies of the reluctant engagement of the United States in Syria. Cases shed light on how, despite pronouncements of restraint by Presidents Obama and Trump, the government has armed and trained rebel fighters, deployed thousands of troops to the country, conducted airstrikes against the Islamic State, and moved to counterbalance Iranian influence in the region. This study helps draw connections between competition among rival advocacy coalitions and strategic drift in US foreign policy, including patterns of change and “purposive non-change.” The article concludes with a discussion of the added value of the ACF model and details its promise for application in other comparative cross-national contexts.