A Gallup
poll, published on Friday, shows the support by Americans for U.S. military
action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad -- for its use
of chemical weapons on a Damascus suburb on August 21 -- is the lowest for any
intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years.
Although history shows support
increase should conflict start, writes Gallup’s Andrew Dugan, thirty-six
percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce
Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. The majority -- 51% -- oppose such
action, while 13% are unsure.
Americans also opposed military
intervention in Syria in a May Gallup survey. In that
poll, by 68% to 24%, Americans opposed military action "to attempt to
end the conflict" if "all economic and diplomatic efforts fail to end
the civil war in Syria."
Dugan writes:
Support is now somewhat higher,
perhaps because of new allegations, from the U.S. and other nations, that Assad's
government used chemical weapons against his own people, resulting in mass
casualties. However, the current question specifies a reason for the action --
to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, a narrower goal than ending
the civil war, which is how Gallup previously asked about intervention.
Among recent past conflicts on
which Gallup gauged public opinion prior to U.S. action, support was highest
for intervening in Afghanistan and lowest for the 1999 conflict in Kosovo.
Americans were divided about U.S. participation in the NATO bombing in Serbia's
Kosovo region about a month before the NATO campaign began. The similarity is
noteworthy because some analysts are comparing a potential strike in Syria with
that military episode, in terms of scope, duration, and purpose.
The other three military
engagements Gallup asked Americans about before they began -- in Iraq in 2003,
Afghanistan in 2001, and the Persian Gulf in 1991 -- were all on a larger scale
than what President Barack Obama proposes to do in Syria, and involved sending
U.S. troops into foreign countries. All of these proposed military operations
received majority support before they began. Notably, all of these conflicts,
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, were authorized by Congress and/or
the United Nations at the time of the polling. Congress is currently debating
whether to authorize military force in Syria.
Change if action is taken
If history is any guide,
Americans' support for intervening in Syria may increase if the U.S. uses
military force, due to what is known as a "rally effect."
Over the past 20 years,
Americans' support for U.S. military engagements at the beginning of conflicts
has traditionally been quite high, with an average of 68% of approving of 10
previous newly commenced conflicts.
The 1999 Kosovo/Balkans and 2003
Iraq conflicts are the clearest examples of the rally effect. Americans'
backing of the bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia climbed to majority
levels once the United States became militarily involved. The 2003 Iraq war is
even more dramatic: 56% of Americans favored taking military action against
Iraq in February 3-6, 2003, polling, about a month before the conflict began.
By March 17 of that year, when war with Iraq was imminent, American approval of
the coming conflict had risen to 66%. A day after the war began, support
climbed to 76%.
Public support for action in
Syria may also be bolstered by congressional authorization. Two wars with high
levels of initial approval, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, were
authorized by Congress via legislation. However, both conflicts took place in a
national security climate still deeply influenced by the tragic September 11,
2001, attacks. Importantly, despite robust initial support and congressional
authorization, many Americans now see these two wars as mistakes,
perhaps due to the protracted U.S. engagement in those countries.
Partisanship
Americans have seen more recent
wars through partisan
lenses. This is true again in Syria's case, with Democrats divided on
whether to intervene and a strong majority of Republicans opposed.
Independents also swing strongly
against taking action, with 53% opposed. That more Democrats than Republicans
support action -- a sharp reversal from the Iraq war, which Republicans were
more supportive of -- is likely because a Democratic president is proposing
these war measures.
Surprisingly, liberals and
conservatives both skew against military action, while moderates are more
divided.
Following news of Syria
The 71% of Americans who say they
are following news about the civil war in Syria very or somewhat closely is up
from 48% in June -- and higher than Gallup's 60% average for attention paid to
hundreds of past key news events.
Implications
As Congress debates granting Obama
the authorization to use military force that he deems necessary to stop the use
of weapons of mass destruction in Syria, the American public is mostly against
such action. Support has grown marginally since earlier this year, but a slight
majority remains opposed.
Americans, at least initially,
were much more supportive of previous military engagements. But after more than
a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, war fatigue may be lingering.
This is evidenced not only by Americans' relatively low level of support for
U.S. intervention in Syria, but also the less-than-majority post-intervention
approval (47%) of the 2011 military action in Libya.
Historically, Americans often
rally around military actions once engagement begins, and should Congress
authorize U.S. action in Syria, this may also heighten support for it -- if it
occurs. Currently, though, much of the nation would rather sit this one out.
Survey methods
Results for this Gallup poll are
based on telephone interviews conducted September 3-4, 2013, on the Gallup
Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,021 adults, aged 18 and older,
living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total
sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of
sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with
respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews
conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each
sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents
and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region.
Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial
methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the
basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted to correct
for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline
and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the
national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education,
region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline
only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on
the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S.
population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National
Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010
census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design
effects for weighting.
In addition to sampling error,
question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce
error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
