A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was taken Aug.19-23, the very same week that horrific reports emerged strongly suggesting that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, potentially killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians. If there were ever a time that Americans would support some sort of action, you’d think this would be it. But this is the lowest support for intervention since the poll began tracking opinion on the issue. The survey also found that 60 percent oppose intervention outright, with the rest, perhaps sagely, saying that they don’t know.
Strangely, 25 percent said that they support intervention if Assad uses chemical weapons. I say strangely because the United States announced way back in June that it believed Assad had done exactly this. A large share of people who answered that the United States should intervene if Assad uses chemical weapons are apparently unaware that this line has already been crossed. Presumably, some number of these people would drop their support if they realized the question was no longer hypothetical.
The United States certainly appears to be considering limited strikes on Syria in response to last week’s suspected chemical weapons attack. The calculus for and against is complicated enough in foreign policy terms. But the White House is also a political institution, and it will surely keep the domestic politics, which appear to oppose any intervention very strongly, well in mind.
More from WorldViews on Syria:
“America is a VERTICAL HEMISPHERE named for Amerigo Vespucci (the first navigator to accurately draw a map of this vertical hemisphere), and America was so-named in his honor almost 300 years BEFORE our country was created. Our country of THE United States –OF– America is NOT what this hemisphere was named after… we were named THE United States –OF– America almost 300 years after this vertical hemisphere was named America because we were the ONLY united union of political organizations in the colony-realms of America, and that we as the USA were originally considered an amalgamation of “confederated independent states”, until we became a SINGLE FEDERATION of former-state organizations when we became joined together as one STATE called THE United States –OF– America… and a STATE is a nation, but today we still incorrectly call our sub-political federated units “states”. — Ronald Kinum 2005″
“”American” does not mean a natizen of our USA… our prejudices have wrongly adopted that unjust mentality. – Libris Fidelis August 12,2013″
Obama appears to be following the Bush model in foreign policy; so, by your reasoning, Obama is a war criminal as well?
The west no longer has the will to require abject surrender of the populous, and so we cause our next problem by hoping to win the hearts and minds of our enemies. We used to not care and simply imposed our will on the Germans and the Japanese and they are better off and peace has lasted for generations now.
Syria has no national interest for us, other than as wag the dog taking our focus off our own governments that ARE requiring citizens abject surrender.
If you weep for the dead Syrians you need to take a close look at the brutality of the rest of the ongoing civil wars in the Congo, Somalia, Libya and so on.
The west used to make cultural moral judgements, the British Empire got a bum rap. Where they touched is better off than the rest of the world today, because when they conquered a people they rightly judged barbarianism as such and did their best to eradicate it. Weakened western values now are afraid to say boo to barbaric cultures because we have some romanticized idea of their barbarism being compatible with the modern world.
Either destroy Islam, save its people, or learn to live with their internecine barbarity.
(Not that I’m rooting for him to, just pointing out a kinda essential difference)
We should keep well away from this conflict. Every time we interfere in the Middle East we leave the country in a bigger mess than we started and are hated by the local population.
When my sons in the armed forces are risking their lives I want to know its to protect fellow Americans, not to fight over oil on the other side of the world for our greedy politicians.
now how does that work out for you, feel real safe behind our coasts.. an ocean on either side of our shores used to be a good defense, not so any more.
are you ready to just accept what the rest of the world sends our way and deal with it in silence because that is the world you are wishing for
So…no, I’m not ready to be the policemen of the world….and I’m not ready to swallow that weak excuse!
There is a difference between being isolationist and tending to your own problems first. Neville Chamberlain came back and said “Peace in our time” and a few months later Hitler invaded the Sudetenlands – and NO ONE did anything. There was no civil war in Germany. Germans were mainly united in following whatever lead “Der Fuhrer” set.
The Syrians are engaged in a Civil War — not a crusade to take over other countries. How would citizens of the United States react if we were having a Civil War and some other country who didn’t like it decided to intervene by bombing us or our weapons stashes?
The war in Syria is horrific and inhumane but it is none of our business. Much more our business is to stop Iran from getting nuclear capabilities but instead we will march on because our only policy for the last 60 years has been interventionist policy. Where has it gotten us besides broke . . .
By the way how are you an BUSH getting alone lately?
- © 1996-2013 The Washington Post
- …and I am Sid Harth