War-weary Americans wary of US attacking Syria

The US military is poised to attack Syria in response to chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. But most polls show public opposition to US military intervention in Syria.

United Media Office of Arbeen/AP
A member of a UN investigation team takes samples of sand near a part of a missile likely to be one of the chemical rockets in the Damascus countryside of Ain Terma, Syria.

For months, polls have shown that most Americans do not favor US military involvement in Syria’s civil war. Even with news of last week’s chemical attack – presumably by the Assad regime – that killed hundreds of civilians, the percentage of those favoring an aggressive US response increases only slightly, according to the most recent survey.

It’s part of a pattern dating back to the Vietnam War, certainly since the “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 was shown to have been wrong. And it has continued as the public observes the persistent sectarian violence in Iraq following US withdrawal and the difficult US disengagement from Afghanistan.

"Will Americans suffer from an Iraq syndrome in future conflicts?” CNN polling director Keating Holland asks on CNN’s website. “We may get an answer to that question in the next few weeks."

The most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken Aug. 19-23, finds that “Americans strongly oppose US intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.”

By 60 to 9 percent, according to this poll, those surveyed believe the US should not intervene militarily in Syria. The percentage of those favoring intervention increases to 25 percent when the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons is factored in – still far less than the 46 percent who say “no” to US intervention under such circumstances, and less than the 30 percent found to favor intervention with proof of chemical attacks two weeks earlier.

By 47 to 27 percent, those surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos also oppose President Obama’s decision to send arms to some of the rebels fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

A Monitor/TIPP poll taken August 24-28 had respondents opposing US military action in Syria 52 to 39 percent. That same poll had just 22 percent rating Obama’s handling of the situation Syria as “excellent” or “good” with 38 percent saying the President’s handling of Syria had been “poor” or “unacceptable.”

Other polls taken earlier this year showed greater support for US military action in response to chemical weapons use in Syria. But that was at a time when the question of American intervention may have been more abstract, less likely to happen any time soon. Now, US Navy destroyers (and likely attack submarines) are poised to launch barrages of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian targets.

The picture may change in the next day or two, but for now administration officials seem eager to avoid the mistake of Iraq – telling the Associated Press the evidence so far is not a “slam dunk,” a reference to former CIA director George Tenet’s infamous characterization of locating Saddam Hussein’s WMD in Iraq.

“A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats – including acknowledging that the US intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more US officials,” reports the AP.

Officials used the “no smoking gun” phrase in similar comments to The New York Times.

In any case, Pew pollster Andrew Kohut told Politico recently: “Internationalism is at a low point and people are very wary of American involvement – particularly American military involvement – in that part of the world.”

“We’ve had a rather consistent ‘let’s not get involved’ response to the crises in the Middle East more generally now for the past three or four years,” Mr. Kohut said. “This part of the world has not proved to be a successful one from the point of view of the American public, so wanting to avoid further trouble is not unexpected.”

Or as CNN's Mr. Holland puts it: "After the Vietnam war, Americans were much less likely to support the use of US force, a phenomenon often referred to as the Vietnam syndrome.”

Whether such opinion changes in favor of US involvement in Syria is likely to depend on what proof of chemical weapons use is presented by US intelligence sources soon and by United Nations weapons inspectors likely to report their findings this weekend.

It may also depend on how Obama portrays any US mission he has decided upon.

In his interview on PBS’s "NewsHour" Wednesday night, Obama referred to “a shot across the bow,” which sounds brief and perhaps largely symbolic.

He also made a point of emphasizing that he’s thinking in terms of “limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about.”

As with all conflicts, there are likely to be what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to as “unknown unknowns” – “the ones we don't know we don't know.”

For example, observes John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, “Obama on the 'NewsHour' last night seemed not to appreciate that what he might do to persuade Assad from using gas again might make it more likely that Al Qaeda would obtain access to poison gas.”

Such unknowns may be adding to public wariness about any US attack on Syria.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.