War by polling
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Associated Press which uses polling for justification for airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, ahead of the President’s loooonnnnngggg awaited strategy in the against the Islamic Caliphate;
In a shift for a war-weary nation, new polls suggest the American people would support a sustained air campaign. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed 71 percent of Americans support airstrikes in Iraq, up from 54 percent just three weeks ago. And 65 percent say they support extending airstrikes into Syria.
Taking that latter step would raise legal and geopolitical issues that Obama has long sought to avoid, particularly without formal congressional authorization.
Unlike in Iraq, Obama would not be acting at the invitation of a host government. However, some international law experts say airstrikes could be justified as a matter of self-defense if Obama argues the Islamic State poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies from inside Syria, whose government is unwilling or unable to stop it.
We’ve been discussing over the last several years how there is a disconnect between the people who fight wars and the people who take polls. We’ve also been talking the last few months how Americans are war-weary. They’re not really weary of war, they’re weary of the thoughts of casualties intruding into their completely comfortable lives. Standing off from the targets by a few thousand feet or by a few thousand miles is totally attractive.
But I remember the video of airstrikes against Serbia when a train full of passengers flashed on the gun camera right before the bomb struck a trestle and public opinion waned within moments after that was shown on CNN. Americans are fickle, which is why they conduct these polls every day.
The thing is, a leader ignores the polling and convinces the public to see things his way, not the other way around. Like I said earlier today, the only reason that Obama is going to Congress for approval is so he can share blame if it all goes to shit.
I don’t remember what polling said about our last entry into an Iraq War, do you? So I looked at Gallup’s archives for February 28, 2003;
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 59% of Americans in favor of invading Iraq with ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That level of support is unchanged from last week, and down slightly from the 63% found shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s U.N. speech arguing for military action against Iraq. In general, the percentage of supporters has changed little over the last five months.
How about if we take a look at September 10th, 2010, just a few years ago;
Nine years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, 1% of Americans mention terrorism as the most important problem facing the country, down from 46% just after the attacks.
Before the swath cut across Iraq and Syria by the ISIS in June this year;
Americans mostly oppose direct U.S. military action to help the Iraqi government fight Islamic militants threatening to take control of that country. A June 20-21 Gallup poll finds 54% of Americans opposed to and 39% in favor of taking such action, lower than the level of support for other potential U.S. military actions in recent decades.
American public opinion is too fickle to be taken seriously, too fickle to put lives in danger in the name of the American people.
Category: Terror War
Athens all over again.
We are doomed.
We’ve also been talking the last few months how Americans are war-weary. They’re not really weary of war, they’re weary of the thoughts of casualties intruding into their completely comfortable lives.
Exactly this, and you’re also right that we shouldn’t base our foreign policy on public opinion due to it’s fickle nature. But, politicians are answerable to it and it is too easy for public opinion to be manipulated because far too many know nothing and understand little.
For instance, the other day I was talking to a woman who is all in favor of going after ISIS, but who somehow had the idea that Qatar was some other militant group (she had no idea it was a country in and of itself). This is a woman with a good job, whose son is a National Guard soldier, but her understanding of the situation was seriously flawed.
Now multiply that by the millions who live comfortable, insulated lives and who react to image and media manipulation and we start to see the problem that a leader who understands the threat and is resolved to act faces.
I’d say they’re not even weary of thoughts of casualties – they’re weary of one political side beating on the other political side endlessly about the same topic over and over – I think it’s the lack of topic novelty more than anything else. Sure, they dress it up as concern about us, but if they actually gave a shit they’d let us win wars, not lawfare the efforts to death.
… they’re weary of one political side beating on the other political side endlessly about the same topic over and over…
Probably true. It used to be that politics ended at the water’s edge, but there is a faction within our political structure that believes (with reason) that there is mileage to be gained there.
I see two possible scenarios playing out on this. One, Obama goes to Congress, they agree to whatever half measure bullshit plan he proposes, it goes to shit and he blames Congress. Or in the event it works, he takes all the credit.
The second scenario has Obama not getting Congressional approval, going to war anyway and blaming Congress for standing in his way when all he is trying to do is keep America safe. If the war goes south, he blames Congress for not helping him to rally the American people. If things go well, of course he takes all the credit.
Dear Leader is all politician, not one bit of a leader. He is calculating all the political angles more than he is evaluating any threat to the Homeland. He needs to retain the Senate in November to have any chance to do anything for the next two years. That is what is driving every decision here. That is why whatever plan he and his crack foreign policy/military team come up with to battle those raghead fucks is going to have more political hands on it than military hands.
This guy is a Clusterfuck. With a capital C.
In my generation and the ones before, people were quite informed of the world and the needs of America’s best interest and stood by it. Now they are as stated, fickle. Show them beheadings and they are outraged and want something done ASAP. Then show them the transport of flag draped coffins coming home and their opinions swing 180 degrees. Whatever interrupts their TV, Facebook or Twitter time is too much to think about and then, into the sand their heads go. That is why national leaders…lead. They are suppose to take into account first and foremost the best interest of our nation and its security at home and abroad. Even if it is contrary to popular opinion. Sometimes and more and more in the last several decades, leaders have had to protect even the ill-informed from their own disinterest and self interest. All that said, means having a leader installed to do the hard job in the first place. Obama is not the guy. He cannot claim leader in any fashion. As said above, he desperately wants Congress to say something in favor of action so he has a source of blame in the event HIS strategy goes south…which it will. I don’t know if our nation, on its present course can keep on for two more years of Obama. I have great ideas for a strategy but they are decisive and destructive and result in many, many Muslim deaths and an end to them in Iraq ans Syria, at least. Obama wants to do as little as possible, offend no one, keep his ratings up, lie through his teeth at the drop of a hat and still be “loved” by all. In times of national security risks, being liked and loved is the last thing a President needs to be concerned with. Roosevelt had a lot of opposition about WWII. Then December 7th, 1941 comes and despite some still loud voices for calm and diplomacy and so forth, he made the right call. For then and the future of not only America but the whole world. Loved by… Read more »
Strategy? STRATEGY!!?!?!? There is no strategy here.
If you can find ‘strategy’ in the Oval Office, would you please let me know? I don’t even see ‘winging it’, let alone ‘strategy’.
This dingaling changes his mind with the weather report, if you can call that spongecake in his head a mind. He said two days ago he’d continue to support the Kurds and now he’s only supporting Syria. If he knew what he was really doing, he’d turn in his office keys and go back to Chicago.
Strategy? HAH! Gotcha!
Oh, wait, we’re past April Fool’s Day, so it must be – what? Oh, it’s raining. That’s what it is.
(Goes back to filling out grocery list, shaking head.)