Military strikes in Syria: Five reasons Americans are wary

Opposition to US use of military force in Syria crosses party lines, ideology, race, religion, education, and income levels. On Capitol Hill, liberal Democrats and tea party Republicans use the same talking points as they argue against a congressional resolution to use force in Syria.

Many opponents do not quibble with the Obama administration's premise for striking at Syria: that the regime of Bashar al-Assad turned chemical weapons on civilians in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21, killing at least 1,400 people. But they are not persuaded that American military involvement there will yield anything productive. Here are the top five reasons Americans are wary of US military strikes in Syria.

[Updated Sept. 9]

Jason Reed/Reuters
Protester Medea Benjamin is pictured alongside Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as the two men testify at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria on Capitol Hill on Sept. 4.

1. People are war weary

Jason Reed/Reuters
Protester Medea Benjamin is pictured alongside Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as the two men testify at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria on Capitol Hill on Sept. 4.

A decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has taken a toll on American support for military ventures – and on the public's confidence that US airstrikes can make the situation in Syria better.

While robust majorities initially supported the US intervention in Afghanistan (82 percent) and Iraq (59 percent), only 36 percent favor the US taking military action to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, according to a Gallup poll released Sept. 6. 

More than 2 in 3 Americans, on average, approved of previous US military engagements over the last 20 years, at the outset of the conflict. Syria ranks the lowest. "After more than a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, war fatigue may be lingering," the Gallup poll concluded.

Other recent polls show even starker opposition. Just 29 percent of Americans in a Pew Research Poll favor airstrikes in Syria, with 48 percent opposed. Nearly three-quarters of those polled say US airstrikes are likely to stir a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region, and 61 percent say they are likely to lead to a long-term US military commitment in Syria.

"Americans have heard it before – that we'll be in and out quick," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, commenting on the poll. "You could call it war weariness or just a lack of faith in this kind of promise. There's also a related sense that our efforts overseas have not been effective ... or done more harm than good."

To many Americans, the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East – or anywhere, for that matter – is a bridge too far. In June, only 28 percent of Americans said that the Afghan war had been worth fighting, according to an ABC/Washington post poll. The shorthand for all that negativity on war is "war weary."

Six in 10 Americans oppose missile strikes against Syria, even if it's clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Sept. 3. That opposition is deep and robust: It extends across party lines, regions, age groups, income, and education levels, the survey showed. Fifty-four percent of Democrats oppose missile strikes, as do 55 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents.

1 of 5

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.

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