War in Syria: 75 Percent of Americans Against the Use of Force
Public opinion polls show that Americans are not only concerned about domestic problems such as the economy, employment and education, but also about their country's tragic experiences with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the military intervention against Damascus, President Obama will have to face both sides: skeptical Democrats and unenthusiastic Republicans.
The United States is considering “limited military action” in Syria, in the hopes of “discouraging and weakening” President Assad’s military forces. Yet the possibility of military action remains a difficult and risky choice for Obama’s administration, especially at this moment, considering current public opinion. Obama is faced with a country that has gone through two trying and costly wars over the past 12 years in faraway lands. Americans feel little attachment and connection with these countries’ main concerns and daily life.
According to a series of polls carried out over the past few days, the majority of U.S. citizens remain against a military intervention in Syria. A Reuters/Ipsos poll carried out last week shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose the use of force against the government in Damascus. The result is similar to that which was shown by a poll conducted by CBS and The New York Times at the beginning of June, which showed that 69 percent of American citizens thought that the United States had no obligation to help Syria. It is true that the use of chemical arms and the decimation of civilians could have had a slight effect on the numbers in the poll and that the idea of a “limited duration” conflict could have the effect of softening people’s resistance. However, the reality that Obama must face at the moment is above all limited to one issue: The majority of Americans do not approve of an umpteenth military intervention abroad.
Public opinion polls show that Americans are not only concerned about domestic problems such as the economy, employment and education, but also about their country's tragic experiences with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another recent poll conducted by ABC and the Washington Post reveals that only three out of 10 Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan was justified. The results of the poll and its political implications were recently summarized by Julia Clark, vice president of Ipsos Public Affairs: “The last few years, we’ve seen a real lack of appetite for this kind of intervention anywhere in the world.” In other words, American “internationalization” is at one of its lowest points in history; the population is tired and suspicious of costly choices in terms of human lives and budget constraints.
Recent events should warn Obama and his supporters to proceed with caution. The military intervention in Libya, which in certain ways could be considered similar to the intervention being prepared against Assad, never gained the support of the American majority. In June 2011, as the NATO intervention against Moammar Gadhafi was largely under way, only 30 percent of Americans believed that the United States was doing the “right thing.” Further complicating matters is the problem linked to the perception Americans have of the events in Syria. In the eyes of most Americans, Assad and Syria are even more unknown and unfamiliar compared to other countries and world powers. All of the recent months’ polls show that the percentage of Americans in favor of the use of arms increased immediately if North Korea or Iran were mentioned as the target of a possible military intervention. For Americans, explain many poll takers, the Iranian nuclear threat or a possible North Korean attack on South Korea are issues that are a lot clearer and more understandable compared to what is happening in Syria. In other words, it is much harder to pinpoint the “bad guys” in Damascus.
In any case, it is not only public opinion that is showing strong opposition to the dispatch of American forces in Syria. Even many sectors of the American political sphere have no enthusiasm for a new dispatch of troops to the Middle East, saying that it is too late to intervene in a battle which America has no guarantee of winning. Above all, Obama must sort it out with his party members, the Democrats, who are faced with a difficult 2014 election campaign and who do not have any desire to find themselves facing voters disappointed by the poor performance of the U.S. economy and enraged with new military spending. Loretta Sanchez, the second-highest ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, explained that the United States must support the United Nations’ inspection efforts and warns against a possible intervention, stating that the situation in Syria is “as complicated as it could be” and that military intervention in Syria could “have unintended consequences that could, in fact, make the situation worse.”
The Democrats’ skepticism is reflected in the stance taken by a large number of Republicans. The ever-growing power that the libertarian and tea party facets of the Republican Party have acquired means that the GOP is very closed to the idea of military adventures abroad. If the most conventional and traditional faction of the party supports Obama — John McCain and Lindsay Graham have proclaimed themselves to be favorable to “limited action” — the other senators and members of Congress come across, however, as being a lot more reluctant, fearing the consequences that the use of force could have on either domestic events in Syria and on the international level. The conservatives’ doubts have been summarized by Tom Rooney, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, “Syria is too far gone to pick sides. The rebels are infiltrated with al-Qaida … And Russia won’t help us find a solution because relations [between Washington and Moscow] are as bad as they have been in 30 years.”
Both Democrats and Republicans, however, are ready to weigh up the American strategy in Syria when Congress convenes again at the beginning of September, after Labor Day. At this point, Obama will have to justify his policy in Syria whether or not an intervention against Assad takes place.
The United States is considering “limited military action” in Syria, in the hopes of “discouraging and weakening” President Assad’s military forces. Yet the possibility of military action remains a difficult and risky choice for Obama’s administration, especially at this moment, considering current public opinion. Obama is faced with a country that has gone through two trying and costly wars over the past 12 years in faraway lands. Americans feel little attachment and connection with these countries’ main concerns and daily life.
According to a series of polls carried out over the past few days, the majority of U.S. citizens remain against a military intervention in Syria. A Reuters/Ipsos poll carried out last week shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose the use of force against the government in Damascus. The result is similar to that which was shown by a poll conducted by CBS and The New York Times at the beginning of June, which showed that 69 percent of American citizens thought that the United States had no obligation to help Syria. It is true that the use of chemical arms and the decimation of civilians could have had a slight effect on the numbers in the poll and that the idea of a “limited duration” conflict could have the effect of softening people’s resistance. However, the reality that Obama must face at the moment is above all limited to one issue: The majority of Americans do not approve of an umpteenth military intervention abroad.
Public opinion polls show that Americans are not only concerned about domestic problems such as the economy, employment and education, but also about their country's tragic experiences with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another recent poll conducted by ABC and the Washington Post reveals that only three out of 10 Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan was justified. The results of the poll and its political implications were recently summarized by Julia Clark, vice president of Ipsos Public Affairs: “The last few years, we’ve seen a real lack of appetite for this kind of intervention anywhere in the world.” In other words, American “internationalization” is at one of its lowest points in history; the population is tired and suspicious of costly choices in terms of human lives and budget constraints.
Recent events should warn Obama and his supporters to proceed with caution. The military intervention in Libya, which in certain ways could be considered similar to the intervention being prepared against Assad, never gained the support of the American majority. In June 2011, as the NATO intervention against Moammar Gadhafi was largely under way, only 30 percent of Americans believed that the United States was doing the “right thing.” Further complicating matters is the problem linked to the perception Americans have of the events in Syria. In the eyes of most Americans, Assad and Syria are even more unknown and unfamiliar compared to other countries and world powers. All of the recent months’ polls show that the percentage of Americans in favor of the use of arms increased immediately if North Korea or Iran were mentioned as the target of a possible military intervention. For Americans, explain many poll takers, the Iranian nuclear threat or a possible North Korean attack on South Korea are issues that are a lot clearer and more understandable compared to what is happening in Syria. In other words, it is much harder to pinpoint the “bad guys” in Damascus.
In any case, it is not only public opinion that is showing strong opposition to the dispatch of American forces in Syria. Even many sectors of the American political sphere have no enthusiasm for a new dispatch of troops to the Middle East, saying that it is too late to intervene in a battle which America has no guarantee of winning. Above all, Obama must sort it out with his party members, the Democrats, who are faced with a difficult 2014 election campaign and who do not have any desire to find themselves facing voters disappointed by the poor performance of the U.S. economy and enraged with new military spending. Loretta Sanchez, the second-highest ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, explained that the United States must support the United Nations’ inspection efforts and warns against a possible intervention, stating that the situation in Syria is “as complicated as it could be” and that military intervention in Syria could “have unintended consequences that could, in fact, make the situation worse.”
The Democrats’ skepticism is reflected in the stance taken by a large number of Republicans. The ever-growing power that the libertarian and tea party facets of the Republican Party have acquired means that the GOP is very closed to the idea of military adventures abroad. If the most conventional and traditional faction of the party supports Obama — John McCain and Lindsay Graham have proclaimed themselves to be favorable to “limited action” — the other senators and members of Congress come across, however, as being a lot more reluctant, fearing the consequences that the use of force could have on either domestic events in Syria and on the international level. The conservatives’ doubts have been summarized by Tom Rooney, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, “Syria is too far gone to pick sides. The rebels are infiltrated with al-Qaida … And Russia won’t help us find a solution because relations [between Washington and Moscow] are as bad as they have been in 30 years.”
Both Democrats and Republicans, however, are ready to weigh up the American strategy in Syria when Congress convenes again at the beginning of September, after Labor Day. At this point, Obama will have to justify his policy in Syria whether or not an intervention against Assad takes place.