Finally, U.S. leaders in the 2004 CCFR surveys gave higher priority than the public to most Military Security commitments. In contrast to the lower priority they give to domestic issues such as job protection, leaders were much more willing than the public to "use U.S. troops" to defend specific friendly countries-for example, to defend South Korea from a North Korean invasion or Taiwan from a Chinese invasion (see Figure 2).

The foreign policy goal of "defending our allies' security" was included in all CCFR public and leader surveys between 1978 and 2002 and was usually accorded higher priority by the leaders than the public-on the average, 67 percent of leaders found it very important, compared to 49 percent of the public. This goal was critical in identifying the Military Security factor in several earlier CCFR surveys, but it was omitted from the 2004 survey. However, the 2004 CFFR survey did include a roughly comparable question on whether "a country-without U.N. approval-should have the right to use military force... to defend another country that has been attacked." Seventy-one percent of leaders said yes, compared to 59 percent of the public.

Leaders were also more supportive than the public of U.S. participation in specific international peacekeeping forces-for example, in Afghanistan, to "enforce a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians," and to "help keep peace between India and Pakistan." They gave appreciably less support than the public to using U.S. troops in two situations tested that have clear domestic ramifications: "to ensure the oil supply" (36 percent of leaders in favor versus 54 percent of the public) and "to fight drug lords in Colombia" (leaders 27 percent in favor versus public 51 percent). (Securing adequate energy supplies and stopping the inflow of illegal drugs were also rated more important foreign policy goals by the public than by the leaders.)

Various polls have shown that most Americans believe a multilateral foreign policy approach-including burden-sharing and setting common goals-is usually the most effective way to advance U.S. interests. In March 2004, a survey by PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) found a 79 percent to 20 percent majority of the U.S. public-a forty-year record high-disagreeing with the statement, "Since the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying too much about whether other countries agree with us or not."

When the Chicago Council survey asked in 2004 which was the more important lesson of September 11 in fighting terrorism, 73 percent of the public (and 84 percent of the leaders) said "the U.S. needs to work more closely with other countries," compared to 23 percent of the public (and 9 percent of leaders) who replied "the U.S. needs to act on its own more."

The CFFR also tested public support for U.S. military action in a number of hypothetical situations, with and without gaining U.N. approval. The increase in support by having U.N. approval averaged nineteen percentage points for the public (and twenty-three points for the leaders) for the five situations tested in 2004. For example, support for using military force "to prevent a country that does not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them" rose from 50 percent of the public (34 percent of the leaders) without U.N. approval to 70 percent of the public (62 percent of leaders) with U.N. Security Council authorization (see Figure 3).

There was one exception to the preference for multilateral measures: CCFR found 53 percent of the public and 61 percent of U.S. leaders believed that if a country has "strong evidence it is in imminent danger of being attacked by another country," then it has "the right to go to war" unilaterally against that country. Only 17 percent of the public and 10 percent of leaders preferred the preventive war option, indicating that they believed going to war against another country is justified if there is "strong evidence that it is acquiring weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us at some point in the future." One-fourth of both the public (24 percent) and leaders (25 percent) said they opposed a country going to war unless it has first been attacked.