Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Poll Shows Little U.S. Support for Syria Intervention

Despite an aggressive push by neoconservative groups and hawks in Congress, the American public simply doesn’t support U.S. intervention in Syria.

Inter Press Service 

Despite strenuous efforts by prominent neo-conservatives and other hawks, a war-weary U.S. public is clearly very leery of any armed intervention in what many experts believe is rapidly becoming a civil war in Syria, according to recent polls.

In a survey released last week, the Pew Research Center found that only 25 percent of respondents said they believed the U.S. has a "responsibility to do something" about the year-old violence in Syria, in which more than 7,500 people have died, while nearly two thirds (64 percent) answered the question negatively.

Similarly, only 25 percent said they would favour the U.S. and its allies bombing Syrian military forces to protect anti-government groups, an idea put forward by the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, two weeks ago, and quickly endorsed by his two fellow-hawks, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Independent Joseph Lieberman.

Although promoted by various think tanks, notably the neo-conservative Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and embraced by Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl, among others, the proposal has failed to gain traction, even among the most hawkish of the Republican presidential candidates.

Their silence on the issue appears to be due to several factors, not the least of which is the fact that the primary campaign has been overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues, especially the economy and social questions dear to the heart of the Christian Right, including abortion, gay marriage, and even contraception.

To the extent the Republican campaign has dealt at any length with foreign-policy questions, it has been dominated by the threat to Israel and the U.S. that is allegedly posed by Iran's nuclear programme and whether Washington should provide Israel with all the weapons it needs to strike Tehran's nuclear facilities or carry out an attack itself.

Recent serious setbacks in Afghanistan – particularly the recent massacre in Kandahar Province of 16 innocent civilians, including nine children, by a U.S. sergeant, and President Hamid Karzai's subsequent demand that U.S. combat forces be made subject to much tighter constraints – has also crept into the campaign in a way that appears to have actually reduced the hawkishness of the three leading candidates. Two of the three, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, have even suggested that perhaps Washington should accelerate the withdrawal of its 90,000 troops there.

In this context, Syria is gaining little public attention, and neither the administration nor Democrats in Congress are doing much to promote it.

The Pentagon, much to the chagrin of neo-conservative commentators like Max Boot and Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations, has made opposition to any military intervention in Syria clear, just as it did in Libya one year ago.

While admitting that the demise of the Bashar al-Assad regime would deal a major strategic blow against Iran, top military commanders have also insisted that Damascus's air defences are five times more effective than those faced by U.S. warplanes in Libya and that any air strikes would risk much greater collateral damage due to the fact that the same air defences are located in urban areas.

They, as well as the administration's civilian leadership, have also raised questions about the composition and disunity of the opposition, a reservation that appears to have become more worrisome even to Republican hawks amidst reports that Al Qaeda-affiliated units may be responsible for the latest, highly lethal bombings in Aleppo and Damascus itself.

The hawks have argued that the Pentagon is exaggerating the power of Syria's military capabilities, noting, for example, that Israel, with far fewer assets, wiped out virtually the entire Syrian air force in a matter of hours during its invasion of southern Lebanon 30 years ago and, 25 years later, successfully bombed a presumed nuclear reactor without even being detected by Damascus' air defences.

They have also argued that Washington should intervene, if only by supplying arms directly or indirectly through neighbouring states, precisely to give a leg up to opposition forces that are friendly – or at least not hostile – to Washington in any post-Assad government.

But the public is clearly reluctant. Asked about sending arms to opposition groups, only 29 percent told Pew that they would favour such a course; 63 percent opposed it.

A more detailed poll released here early Tuesday by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) obtained similar results. It was conducted just before the Pew survey and at the same time that McCain called for deploying U.S. and allied air power against Syria's military to protect the opposition.

Two thirds of the poll's respondents said they favoured the idea of establishing "safe havens" for civilians and opposition forces in Syria if they were established by the Arab League and Turkey.

Under such circumstances, respondents were roughly evenly split on whether Washington should agree to provide air cover to protect the havens but were overwhelmingly opposed (77 percent) to sending U.S. troops to help defend them.

By a 37-56 percent margin, they also opposed any role for the U.S. in supplying the opposition with arms. Asked whether they would support such an option if the Arab League asked the U.S. to help, respondents were even more opposed: only 27 percent said they should go along with such a request; 66 percent rejected the idea.

Remarkably, self-described political independents – who are likely to be the swing voters in the November elections – were considerably more opposed to any intervention than either Democrats or Republicans, according to the poll.

"Clearly, Americans are feeling concerned about the situation in Syria, …and support outside countries in the region taking steps to protect civilians at risk," said Steven Kull, PIPA's director. "But they are divided about U.S. air power getting involved and clearly do not want to send ground troops."

Indeed, the results suggest that the public is very comfortable with the concept of Washington "leading from behind" on Syria, the phrase used last summer by one White House insider to describe President Barack Obama's low-profile intervention in Libya.

Much ridiculed since by hawks as a revealing admission of Obama's lack of confidence in U.S. "exceptionalism", the phrase appears to fit the present mood.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web. His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share