America supports military action? Wrong.

[WilliamPitt]

“Almost two-thirds back attacking militants. Public in more hawkish mood,” blares the Wall Street Journal about a new poll it released this morning. One prominent WSJ writer tweets: “ISIS may have thought video beheadings would reduce Americans’ desire to act; it seems the opposite happened.”

The poll itself does contain some grounds for these conclusions, finding that 61 percent say “military action” against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is “in the national interest.”

But half-baked suggestions that Americans want generic “action” risk being misleading. What actions do Americans actually support? It turns out the WSJ poll also finds that 40 percent say “action” should be “limited to air strikes only” and another 15 percent say we shouldn’t act at all — a total of 55 percent. Meanwhile, all of 34 percent support air strikes and sending in combat troops — perhaps higher than one might expect, but still only one in three Americans.

What’s more, the poll also finds that only 27 percent say the U.S. should become “more active in world affairs.” That’s up from April, but still, it represents barely more than one in four Americans. Meanwhile, 40 percent say we should be less active and another 29 percent say we should maintain our current level of activeness — a total of 69 percent.

(snip)

But dig down beneath the headlines and you find the CNN poll also showed that a large majority, 61-38, oppose sending in ground troops and an even larger one (more than seven in 10 Americans) want Obama to seek Congressional authorization for any such action. In other words, public opinion is more nuanced and complex than the headlines suggest.

Please, folks, let’s not engage in this sort of hype again. There are just no indications that the public is clamoring for war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/10/morning-plum-is-media-putting-thumb-on-scale-for-war/?hpid=z2

[The Magistrate]

1. True, Sir: The Public Is Not Clamoring For War

The public will not object, however, to an air campaign, even of some length.

[cali]

2. thanks for this. k&r

[panader0]

17. Good to see you posting again

[cali]

19. thank you.

[mahina]

26. Likewise here.

[still_one]

3. and by all indications the president will not have US troops doing ground fighting

air support yes, but I don't see a massive troop deployment

Best to wait until the president speaks before we assume what he will do

[cali]

4. air support being a euphemism for bombing. c'mon, if you're going to advocate it

don't be shy about what it.

[still_one]

6. They are already doing that with Iraq, and Iran per BBC

[7962]

21. I'm not shy abut it. Bomb the hell out of them. Why be shy?

[former9thward]

28. Yes, that has really worked elsewhere.

Not. Ten more terrorists are created for every one killed.

[7962]

31. Worked in WW2. Eventually the futility of losing sets in.

People have to get the message that supporting groups like this will mean that you lose EVERYTHING. We dont fight wars to win anymore. Fighting savages is a different type of war, though. As brutal as the Japanese were in WW2, they eventually realized that continuing to fight was a waste. These groups today are much more fanatical than the most fanatic Japanese or Nazi soldier. There is no reasoning with them, no compromise.

[former9thward]

32. No, it did not work.

Every military historian agrees the air war did not end WW II. The German bombing of England had no effect. The allied bombing of Germany did not end anything. The U.S. bombing of Japan did not end the war. Are you suggesting we use nuclear bombs in Iraq?

[7962]

35. No, I'm not. And you can pick and choose your historians.

Had Germany left Russia alone, they likely wouldve taken over england; we had not entered the war at that time.
Bombing took away the industry needed as well as the ability to live a normal life.
Of course the A bombs brought Japan down. Are you one who thinks the mere act of Russia declaring war in the last days is what did it?
Even after the bombs were dropped, many in the Imperial army didnt want to surrender. They were over ruled. We would have had to invade and occupy. Either that, or let the Russians have done it. things would be a lot different now had we let that happen. Look how foolish we were to allow russia to take the lead in Germany.

[former9thward]

36. You ignore the massive conventional bombing of Japan and throw in the A-Bomb.

That's why I am asking , do you advocate nuclear bombing in Iraq/Syria? If you don't why mention the A bomb? Our bombing in Vietnam did nothing. We lost that war. The first two wars in Iraq were both handled through ground forces. Bombing is good for massive civilian deaths but not much more.

[7962]

38. I said no. Vietnam just illustrates my point. We didnt bomb them to win

Nor did we fight them to win. If we had, we would've invaded NV full force. This tit-for-tat rap doesnt win wars. Why do you think everyone is so afraid of Russia and China? Because they know full well that if they come in, they come in all the way. They dont care.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. K&R

[jeff47]

7. So airstrikes are outside your definition of "military action"?

What actions do Americans actually support? It turns out the WSJ poll also finds that 40 percent say “action” should be “limited to air strikes only” and another 15 percent say we shouldn’t act at all — a total of 55 percent. Meanwhile, all of 34 percent support air strikes and sending in combat troops

If we define airstrikes as not "military action", then yes, only a minority support it. But it seems really strange to not include airstrikes in the definition of "military action". They are an action by the military. And a very effective way of killing people.

If we include airstrikes in military action, then 74% want military action.

[n2doc]

8. Except that they seem to be dropping their support for Obama

And this drop is being blamed, in part, on his inaction. I don't see a lot of other reasons for it, other than the relentless anti-Obama propaganda stream from the MSM. But that has been going on for 6 years now.

If people don't want war, they should support Obama before he is forced to dive in.

[MisterP]

20. no, his support's falling because this war is his baby: closing ranks only encourages intervention

[Nye Bevan]

9. So, overwhelming public support for air strikes, but not for sending in ground troops.

Makes sense to me.

[Downwinder]

10. Are the televangelists leading hordes of the faithful

Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2014, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

to do battle with the Islamic State?

[Iliyah]

11. K & R

Yes, the corporate media is trying to control the narrative. And yes, majority of Americans do not want another war, period, nada, zip.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Why are airstrikes (74% support in WSJ poll, 76% in CNN poll) not military action to you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Because ... Well ...

Because I don't want the U.S. to do anything (while reserving the right to be completely outraged about the Administration's inaction, when ISIS commits the next atrocity).

It's the Progressive way.

[Sopkoviak]

13. Prior to 1941 the American people had no stomach for war

FDR found a work around to help Europe with his "Lend Lease" program and Edward R. Murrow contributed with his "This is London" radio reports. Finally after a strangling blockade by our military Japan was goaded into attacking one of our territories. (ever find it curious that the bulk of our fleet wasn't at Pearl Harbor at the time?)
Next thing you know FDR got what he wanted all along, all out world war.

Much the same with LBJ in S.E. Asia. Nobody had ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin or that we even had "gunboats" there until one of them was possibly, maybe attacked. Next thing you know we had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and "Good Morning Vietnam!"

I don't think many Americans were demanding another war until Saudi Arabia attacked New York in Sept. of 2001. All of a sudden came the demands that we DO SOMETHING.

So bomb the crap out of Afghanistan and pass the Iraq War Resolution and there we go again.

The public is so easy to manipulate.

[IronGate]

16. Ummmm, the bulk of the Pacific Fleet was at Pearl Harbor that fateful day,

the carriers weren't, which the Japanese were gunning for, at the time of WWII, the battlewagons (Battleships) were still considered the backbone of the US Navy, the carriers were considered support ships for the Battleships only, after the attack on Pearl, that all changed.

[7962]

22. Once again, you are spot on with the facts. nt

[IronGate]

29. Thanks.

I'm a history buff, especially on WWII.

[7962]

24. The US military did not blockade Japan. We did impose export sanctions;

because of their actions in Asia against the Chinese, Koreans, etc. They wanted the access to raw materials again.

And Saudi Arabia did not attack us on 9/11, some Saudi citizens did. Using your logic, the US has attacked all the countries that have had American ISIS members attacking them.

[EX500rider]

25. "Finally after a strangling blockade by our military Japan was goaded into attacking.."

Wrong.

No blockade till after the war was started.

There was a US oil embargo prior to the war due to the 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Japan and the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 and the 1940 Japanese invasion of French Indochina.

[YoungDemCA]

33. "Saudi Arabia attacked New York in Sept. of 2001"

[SnakeEyes]

14. I don't know what to think

I'm not a pro-war hawk, I don't want us involved in the ME agin, but having seen how evil ISIS is and the caliphate goals I'm conflicted. If this were 3 years ago when the caliphate was only the insane ramblings of Glenn Beck I'd be like hell no. But nobody saw this coming.

[7962]

23. Since you mentioned him, Beck WAS saying this was coming back then.

He used to quote their leaders at that time as well as play their speeches.

[AtomicKitten]

15. KnR

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. knr

[Fred Sanders]

30. The bottom line of all polling is that the public does .not want combat troops,which is the very

thing the mass media is ignoring as much as possible while shouting out the other results of a mainly push poll questioning.

How they must struggle with the fact the public is sick with their young men dying to protect the reputations of liars.

[grahamhgreen]

34. Excellent analysis:)

[kentuck]

37. A few months ago, a large majority was against war in Iraq....

But we only apply the most recent polls to our desires and liking. Once we are deep into war, the polls may show something different? Either way, polls are a helluva way to determine whether or not we go to war.