Since Russian troops first entered the Crimean peninsula in early March, a series of media polling outlets have asked Americans how they want the U.S. to respond to the ongoing situation. Although two-thirds of Americans have reported following the situation at least “somewhat closely,” most Americans actually know very little about events on the ground — or even where the ground is.

On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.

*snip*

Does it really matter whether Americans can put Ukraine on a map? Previous research would suggest yes: Information, or the absence thereof, can influence Americans’ attitudes about the kind of policies they want their government to carry out and the ability of elites to shape that agenda. Accordingly, we also asked our respondents a variety of questions about what they thought about the current situation on the ground, and what they wanted the United States to do. Similarly to other recent polls, we found that although Americans are undecided on what to do with Ukraine, they are more likely to oppose action in Ukraine the costlier it is — 45 percent of Americans supported boycotting the G8 summit, for example, while only 13 percent of Americans supported using force.

However, the further our respondents thought that Ukraine was from its actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily. Even controlling for a series of demographic characteristics and participants’ general foreign policy attitudes, we found that the less accurate our participants were, the more they wanted the U.S. to use force, the greater the threat they saw Russia as posing to U.S. interests, and the more they thought that using force would advance U.S. national security interests; all of these effects are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. Our results are clear, but also somewhat disconcerting: The less people know about where Ukraine is located on a map, the more they want the U.S. to intervene militarily.

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — The Army is cracking down on tattoos, dental ornamentation and haircuts in a long-awaited update to uniform and appearance rules that could make it harder to enlist and advance up the ranks.

The new rules aren’t yet public, but a 57-page training program the Army posted online about the regulations indicates the service is tightening standards that had been relaxed to allow more people to qualify for service at the heights of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most notably, the new policy comes down hard on tattoos by redefining what “indecent” means, limiting the size and number of tattoos allowed and disallowing ink on the head, neck, wrists and hands. The training program does not specify how the decency standard has been redefined.

Soldiers who already have tattoos in off-limits areas will be allowed to stay in the service, but people who want to join up won’t be allowed in if they have ink on their head, face, neck or wrists, or if they have tattoos whose content violates the Army’s new, stricter standards. Enlisted soldiers with too much ink in visible areas won’t be allowed to become an officer.

Former President George W. Bush has joined the chorus of voices calling for dropping the “D” from “PTSD.”

In a rare public appearance last month to announce the kickoff of his institute’s Military Service Initiative, Bush said that along with pressing for jobs and educational opportunities for veterans, the initiative aims to remove the stigma of having post-traumatic stress disorder or getting treatment for it.

One thing that would help, Bush believes, is lopping off the term “disorder.”

“As most doctors will tell you, post-traumatic stress is not a disorder. Post-traumatic stress, or PTS, is an injury that can result from the experience of war. And like other injuries, PTS is treatable,” Bush said during the Empowering Our Nation’s Warriors Summit in Dallas.

In pushing for the change, Bush joins retired Army Gen. Pete Chiarelli and veterans’ groups lobbying the medical community to consider PTSD an injury rather than a psychological disorder.

When he served as Army vice chief of staff, Chiarelli pressed for the change within the ranks and also called on the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the diagnostic manual used to determine psychological conditions, to do the same.

Chiarelli, who favors “post-traumatic stress,” or the term used by the Canadian military, “operational stress injury,” believes those are more accurate than “disorder.”

“Are you telling me that a woman who has been violently sexually assaulted has a disorder if she later has issues with male relationships or other problems? It’s ridiculous. It’s an injury, and science already is starting to prove there are physical changes in the brain following a trauma,” said Chiarelli, who serves as CEO of One Mind for Research, a consortium supporting advancements in brain research.