Poll finds American sympathy for Syrians, scant desire to intervene

Post-Iraq conflict fatigue appears to be replacing any 'bellicose itch' among Americans, according to a poll that finds US support for save havens in Syria if someone else sets them up.

|
Murad Sezer/Reuters
Syrian women walk between tents at Reyhanli refugee camp in Hatay province on the Turkish-Syrian border on Monday.

Russia’s president-elect, Vladimir Putin, may believe that the United States has a “bellicose itch,” but Americans appear to be settling into a post-Iraq conflict fatigue in which foreign military intervention is viewed with disfavor.

The most recent evidence of this is a new poll on Americans’ attitudes toward the conflict in Syria.

After months of exposure to repressive Syrian government actions and fighting that has claimed, according to the United Nations, more than 8,000 Syrian lives, about two-thirds of Americans say they support the idea of establishing safe havens inside Syria where civilians could find refuge. But that level of support comes on the condition that any such safe havens be established by others – the Arab League and Turkey – and not the US.

Americans split on the idea of the US providing air cover to help enforce such havens – 48 percent in favor to 45 percent opposed. But there is no ambivalence about sending US troops to join an international corps to protect the havens: Fully three-fourths of Americans say “no” to that option.

The findings, in a poll released Tuesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, mirror the results of a poll last week by PIPA on the US response to the Iran crisis. That poll found that Americans by a large margin prefer a negotiated solution over Iran’s nuclear program to airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Syria poll suggests that Americans, although sympathetic to the plight of the country’s traumatized civilians, are cautious about US involvement in what is increasingly portrayed as a civil conflict. On the issue of providing the rebels with arms, for example, two-thirds say this is not a good idea.

“Clearly Americans are feeling concerned about the situation in Syria, favor US participation in sanctions, and support outside countries in the region taking steps to protect civilians at risk,” says Steven Kull, PIPA’s director. “However they are divided about US air power getting involved and clearly do not want to send ground troops.”

The Obama administration has pressed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad for the violence and stating the council’s support for a political transition in Syria. But Russia and China have vetoed two resolutions – in October and in February – with Russia in particular criticizing Western powers for seeking a green light for antiregime military intervention akin to what NATO carried out last year in Libya.            

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blasted as "despicable" Russia’s willingness to stand up for a regime that is killing its own people, contributing to the overheated diplomatic climate in with Mr. Putin railed against America’s “bellicose itch.”

Americans are most supportive of imposing economic sanctions when given the range of action the US might take to pressure the Syrian government. The PIPA survey shows that 7 of 10 Americans support the US joining other countries in sanctioning Syria – almost as high as the nearly 8 of 10 Americans who oppose sending US troops to help enforce safe havens in Syria.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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.

QR Code to Poll finds American sympathy for Syrians, scant desire to intervene
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0320/Poll-finds-American-sympathy-for-Syrians-scant-desire-to-intervene
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe