• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Christopher S. Chivvis",
    "Christopher Shell"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "ASP",
  "programs": [
    "American Statecraft"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "Taiwan",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Why Black Americans May Be More Hesitant About Overseas Military Intervention

It should not be misinterpreted as a lack of patriotism or skepticism about the armed forces.

Link Copied
By Christopher S. Chivvis and Christopher Shell
Published on Nov 22, 2022
Program mobile hero image

Program

American Statecraft

The American Statecraft Program develops and advances ideas for a more disciplined U.S. foreign policy aligned with American values and cognizant of the limits of American power in a more competitive world.

Learn More

African Americans are much less in favor of sending U.S. forces to defend Ukraine and Taiwan than the general U.S. population, according to findings from a new poll from the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment.

Only 21 percent of Black Americans supported sending military forces to Ukraine, according to the data collected online in early September. In contrast, in a separate poll in August, 38 percent of all Americans supported sending U.S. troops to defend Ukraine.

The Carnegie poll also showed that fewer Black Americans would support sending U.S. troops to Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, as compared with the general American public. The response mirrored support for sending troops to Ukraine: only 20 percent of respondents were in favor—roughly half the level of the general population.

African American hesitation about engaging in armed conflict should not be misinterpreted as a lack of patriotism or even skepticism about America’s armed forces. In fact, a vast majority of African Americans polled expressed either “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” views of the U.S. military. This divergence between Black Americans’ support for the military and lack of support for direct military intervention probably reflects their unique experiences with the military and their historical role in the United States’ twentieth- and twenty first–century wars.

Black American reticence for engagement in armed conflict is not a new phenomenon. The U.S. military has helped Black Americans act on their patriotism and offered an avenue for upward mobility and other benefits, such as education and housing opportunities, that would have been more difficult to obtain in civilian society.

However, as the work of scholars such as Christopher Parker and Chad Williams demonstrates, despite hopes of achieving racial equality through military service, African American veterans have sometimes been denied benefits, and become victims of racial violence despite their service to the country.

Given that Black Americans form a disproportionate share of the U.S. military, many may be concerned that they would shoulder more of the burden in a future war. This belief is partially rooted in the Black American experience during the Vietnam War.

Many Black Americans may also have concerns about the effects of spending taxpayer dollars on overseas operations that could be better spent at home. Myriad socioeconomic ills plague Black America, including wealth inequality, police brutality, and environmental racism. In practice, tradeoffs between guns and butter are difficult and complex, but on some level federal funds spent on overseas military operations might have instead been used to help alleviate these systemic issues.

History also suggests that African American views of Ukraine and Taiwan are likely to be affected by unrelated domestic developments. Historian Daniel S. Lucks’ book Selma to Saigon: The Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War details how Black American support for U.S. intervention in Vietnam was positive initially, likely because of general support for President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, as Black American casualties in Southeast Asia mounted—along with growing racial violence and persistent economic inequality in Black American communities—war support declined. Many Black Americans began to question the purpose of fighting overseas when the battle for civil and human rights at home was not won.

This feeling could repeat itself today amid a worsening economic outlook, continuing police brutality, and persistent infrastructural failures in Black American neighborhoods. If Black American communities concluded that the ongoing fight for equality remains stifled in the United States, then their openness to policies that might lead them to lose their lives in overseas conflicts would unsurprisingly be diminished. The outcome of the Supreme Court case challenging the legality of affirmative action in college admissions could also have a similar impact.

These findings are only a sliver of a much broader picture that the Carnegie Endowment’s American Statecraft Program is studying. We need a more robust picture of how America’s foreign policy objectives align with the interests of Black communities, and specifically how U.S. trade, environmental, and immigration policy intersect with the lives of Black Americans across the country.

The fact that Black American support for military intervention in Ukraine and Taiwan is much lower than average is striking and should be seen in the context of social, economic, and historical realities of Black communities.

About the Authors

Christopher S. Chivvis

Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program

Christopher S. Chivvis is the director of the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Christopher Shell

Fellow, American Statecraft Program

Christopher Shell is a fellow in the American Statecraft Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Authors

Christopher S. Chivvis
Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program
Christopher S. Chivvis
Christopher Shell
Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Christopher Shell
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaTaiwanEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.Trump raises hands behind a lecternCarney speaking on stage
    Collection
    The Middle Power Moment?

    The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.

    Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?

  • Mullin with his hand raised, taking an oath
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Can Mullin Revive FEMA?

    Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.

      • Sarah Labowitz
      • Debbra Goh

      Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh

  • Worker pushing machinery toward a car frame
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Europe’s New Industrial Policy Can Learn From U.S. Mistakes

    Although the IAA often differs from the IRA, European policymakers can still take note of the U.S. act’s shortcomings.

      Milo McBride

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.